--On Wednesday, August 11, 2010 12:58 -0700 SM <sm(_at_)resistor(_dot_)net>
wrote:
Hi Dave,
At 09:41 11-08-10, Dave CROCKER wrote:
My note, here, isn't about that. It's a 'process' question,
meant mostly for academic consideration:
Is this the sort of change that is appropriate for going
from Draft to Full?
The short answer is no.
I would have thought that it was too technical and
substantive and that, at the least, the doc would have to
cycle at, perhaps, Draft.
It would have to be recycled to Proposed. If there isn't any
new requirements, one could argue that this is a narrow change
to address a specific problem identified during deployment.
Interesting. I completely disagree. Suggesting more attention
to a tradeoff and making that tradeoff more clear is a change
in general guidance, not a change in conformance rules or other
normative requirements (much less a "new requirement"). If
changes in general guidance are not acceptable, then the only
changes that can be made between Draft and Full are editorial.
That is, of course, independent of whether consensus could be
reached about the change.
best,
john