On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambar...@gmail.com> wrote: >>Yes, you've brought that to our attention several times. If you wanted this >>spec to align with your software, it would have been much easier if you'd got >>involved before Last Call. > > Why is it called <Last Call> if we don't accept any new input (e.g., > draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-07) . Why do we call RFC <Request For > Comment> if we don't want people to comment on (e.g. RFC2119). > > We SHOULD discuss any input any time, thank the participant, and > accept only consensus on each input at any phase of time.
This is true, and a timing objection is a pretty low-quality response to a substantive issue. This particular timing objection is also somewhat misleading, since it looks like more than one person provided this feedback prior to IETF Last Call without receiving a response: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg08531.html>. My message on the matter was sent on December 3rd, 2012. - Rob
