On 12/09/15 14:25, John C Klensin wrote:
I believe that, even if there were no other problems, those
procedural issues should cause the IESG to return the document
to the WG,
I don't agree. We see outdated and less informative shepherd reports
all the time and I've never seen one of those that was by itself a
sufficient reason to send a draft back to the WG. Many are worth
correcting, but the idea that shepherd reports must be perfect isn't
one we ought adopt.
The other procedural issue mentioned was folks who commented in the
WG to the effect that there was one or other problem with this draft.
I also don't think any of those, nor the accumulation of them, raise
to the level where they are a procedural reason to send this back to
the WG. As far as I've seen, the WG did fully debate this draft. (If
someone thinks I'm missing something there feel free to send me mail
pointing out what was raised but not considered by the WG.)
Note: the above is only commenting on whether or not we have purely
bureaucratic reasons to send this back or not. I conclude that we
do not. I have still re-read the technical comments from the LC to
figure out what I think of those.
S.