purely administratively, I'd like to understand how the WG chairs and AD intend dealing with fundamentally opposed drafts.
I would think that a formalism here might be needed: if we discuss A and not B and reject A, have we implicitly accepted B? And vice-versa? Do we actually need to discuss both together, most of the time, to come to understanding about this? I'd suggest the existence of oppositional drafts (by intent, in no sense do I see this as personal) -the WG adoption question is moot: we probably need to adopt a problem statement if not the two specifics. Is there room to unify? (I know that may be nonsensical for drafts which oppose intent) I'm asking, because I really hope we can avoid the inevitable appeal process. -G _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
