On Dec 4, 2014, at 10:31 AM, Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:
As originally asked, the question to Ted was about Ted, since it offers
no foundation for challenging Ted on the linkage between the current
proposal and a set of previous ones.
We have two specifications that have been approved by the IESG and the IETF as
standards that use A+P, and one additional that will be last-called shortly as
a standards track document. So if the error in 6346 is just in the text Bob
quoted, I agree with Bob. But if Bob is saying that A+P shouldn't be advanced
because its technical content is wrong, then we would seem to have a problem.
That's the question I wanted to resolve by asking Bob the question I asked.