I don't see that text either. I suspect it was omitted because
of the possibility of denial of service attacks on getting
standards out (Scott Bradner, a comment on this might be
helpful).
I do not recall any discussion on this particular question but tere
was a general assumption that common sense would be used so as to not
render any appeal moot before it was processed - note that just
because someing is not specifically enabled in RFC 2026 should
not be read to mean that teh action is specificaly disabled - that
can be the case if 2026 says 'you MUST do X" but I see no reason to
extend 2026 to automatically block actions the WG (or editor) did
not think about unless 2026 dictates a particular path to follow
in this case I see nothing in 2026 that says that publication
can not or should not be held up
Scott
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf