Scott,
If anything that is in front of a WG is fair game for a
consensus call, does it appear to you that a clear
definition of "what is in front of a WG" could be an
addition to a revised RFC 2418?
Scott Bradner wrote:
I'd say that is up to the WG chairs
I have a related question about this part of RFC 2026:
6.5.1 Working Group Disputes
An individual (whether a participant in the relevant Working
Group or not) may disagree with a Working Group recommendation
based on his or her belief that either (a) his or her own views
have not been adequately considered by the Working Group, or
(b) the Working Group has made an incorrect technical choice
which places the quality and/or integrity of the Working
Group's product(s) in significant jeopardy. The first issue is
a difficulty with Working Group process; the latter is an
assertion of technical error. These two types of disagreement
are quite different, but both are handled by the same process
of review.
What happens if an individual wants to appeal Working Group
recommendation based on grounds that do not fit (a) nor (b) above?
Michel.