--On Tuesday, 13 March, 2007 07:47 +0200 Pekka Savola
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007, The IESG wrote:
A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
Working Group Summary
This document set was not produced by an IETF working group,
but by an individual. IETF Last Call produced no comments,
and solicited reviewers were basically positive.
This writeup was not updated or comments were not duly
processed. I see 14 Last Call comments (retaining the subject
line) on ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)list, as well as 12 comments under the
'Protest: Complexity running rampant' thread.
Agreed... I was about to send a similar note when I saw this
I would add that few of the 14 comments were really positive
about this specification. In addition, several of the comments
on both threads asked for specific clarification of the need to
introduce the complexities inherent in an additional syntax for
accomplishing the underlying functionality. The document has
not been modified to reflect those concerns.
If the IESG is going to claim a silent majority in favor of
approving this document, so be it. But to claim that there were
no Last Call comments and that those that were solicited were
positive is deeply problematic. It even leads one to wonder
whether the IESG has ignored critical comments in other cases,
but I trust that has not occurred.
Ietf mailing list