Subject: RE: Proposal for site-local clean-up

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 16:09:23 -0800

> Randy Bush wrote:
> processwise it could be done with a note to the rfc
> editor or in the 48 hour edit call as s/he is doing
> the final edits.

Processwise a recall from the RFC editor could also be challenged all
the way to the IAB or even the ISOC and lead us to 1000+ more emails up
front and 10000 more before all the appeal processes have been
exhausted. Is this the road we are taking?

Michel.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 08:42:39 +0100

> exhausted. Is this the road we are taking?

Without pointing at anyone in particular...

  Why do I get the feeling that one group on the list is trying to argue 
for changing the text because it has proven that it is more effort than 
we get value, another group is trying to push the document through the 
processes with the argument that "this has taken to long". In my mind 
it must be better for something to take a longer time if the result is 
clearer and better defined. There is always a break-off point but I 
don't feel we are there yet.

I fail to see what is so urgent with this.

- kurtis -