Jim wrote: >> I don't have any experience with the types of changes that would be >> allowed in 4871 and still progress the next revision to Draft Standard. >> I realize that is important to many, but I'm more interested in getting >> the spec right than whether it's PS or DS. >>
On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 07:00:24PM -0400, Siegel, Ellen wrote: >While I'm not at all opposed to doing a -bis document, I think that a >number of people are vastly underestimating the time required to take >one to completion. > >My preference would be to declare consensus for the Errata document, >and then work the contents from that document and any other relevant >errata into a more polished -bis document. (I haven't been around for >a whole lot of ietf votes, but 2/3 sure sounds about as close as a >working group is likely to get towards consensus on issues like >these.) > >That approach gets the gist of the Errata clarifications out in a much >more timely manner (i.e., almost immediately), and does not preclude >the generation of the -bis document as rapidly as the process allows. +1 -- Jeff Macdonald jmacdon...@e-dialog.com _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
