On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Brian Smith <br...@briansmith.org> wrote: > Nobody said anything about blocking 6962-bis. Removing that one section is a > smaller change in terms than the change Google made to the document just > last week, as far as the practical considerations are concerned.
With IETF process, having completed WGLC, it would, effectively, require blocking it, so as to send it back to the WG, remove it, re-enter WGLC, and recomplete. That is, the time for that comment is more or less over, as Rob Stradling found out with respect to the chairs' position on that matter. > Regardless, the argument for removing it is exactly your own arguments for > why you don't want to do it in Chrome. Read your own emails to learn more > about my technical objections to it. Have you supplied those to TRANS? Have you provided compelling evidence that the document, as currently written, is so flawed that it would need to re-enter WGLC? The process point alone is enough to let it alone, and it doesn't seem like you're proposing any substantial technical change to it; that is, the substance of the changes are attached to policy, not the technical definition. _______________________________________________ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
