Dave Cridland <dave(_at_)cridland(_dot_)net> writes:
If this isn't standards track because there's no WG consensus for a single
algorithm (and we'll argue over whether a queueing algorithm is a protocol or
not some other time), then I think this WG document should reflect that
consensus and hold back on the recommendations, then, unless you really have
WG
consensus for that position.
If this were an individual submission, it'd be different, but a WG document
must
reflect the Working Group as a whole and not just the authors.
Yes, well, ensuring that it does is what the WG last call and review
process is for, isn't it? Which the draft has been through without
anyone taking issue with it. Not even sure what (if any) the proper
process for handling this is at this time (the tracker lists the status
as "Submitted to IESG for Publication")...?
I explained the reasoning behind the current language in a previous
email. The only proposal for alternative language has been from
Grenville, and as I said I can live with that. However, I'm not terribly
inclined to spend more time editing this until I'm sure that it will
actually put the issue to rest.
-Toke