ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-07.txt> (JSON Pointer) to Proposed Standard

2013-01-06 06:09:38
On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Abdussalam Baryun
<abdussalambaryun(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
Yes, you've brought that to our attention several times. If you wanted this 
spec to align with your software, it would have been much easier if you'd got 
involved before Last Call.

Why is it called <Last Call> if we don't accept any new input (e.g.,
draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-07) . Why do we call RFC <Request For
Comment> if we don't want people to comment on (e.g. RFC2119).

We SHOULD discuss any input any time, thank the participant, and
accept only consensus on each input at any phase of time.

This is true, and a timing objection is a pretty low-quality response
to a substantive issue. This particular timing objection is also
somewhat misleading, since it looks like more than one person provided
this feedback prior to IETF Last Call without receiving a response:
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg08531.html>.
My message on the matter was sent on December 3rd, 2012.

- Rob

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>