Hiya,
On 01/25/2013 04:37 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
If I correctly understand the above, it lies at the root of the
problem I was trying to describe. This is really an experiment
if the effect of deciding we didn't want to make it permanent
was that we were at status quo ante, i.e., as if the experiment
had never been initiated.
That is definitely my intention. I'm happy to make it
clear in the draft, though I guess I'd assumed it was
inherent in the use of 3933. Anyway, yes, I'll add text
saying that explicitly. For now, I've put in a note
in the working copy. [1]
... The moment that appeal is filed, the
document in question moves from "fast track" to the slowest
track of all.
I think I recall someone sometime hoping there'd be more
appeals:-)
Yes, if this generated more appeals then that'd be a bad
outcome. Would it be more likely? I don't know to be honest
but I'd hope not, though perhaps you're right that it sort
of paints a target on a draft. I think this is similar to
points made about picking suitable drafts/implementations
and would be a good thing to say in a wiki rather than
put into the draft. I've added a reminder note to do that
also in [1].
Thanks,
S.
[1] http://down.dsg.cs.tcd.ie/misc/draft-farrell-ft-04.txt