Re: #1416
Lisa Dusseault <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.usenet.format |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Aug 7, 2008, at 4:14 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > As a side note, I'm a bit dissappointed that IETF will grab an > unfinished work and publish it as the product of this group, as if > it were the completed, consensus product. If a group cannot reach > consensus on a draft, and simply stops working on it (as this group > appears to have), then the product is not ready for publication. I would be happy to hear arguments that the current draft is worse than the RFC it would replace. If there is consensus around that point then I'd retract my promise to process the document by the end of the month. However, I'd still close the WG as there has been no progress for so long. The WG came to consensus around most of the latest I-D with the exception of issue #1416, and partial consensus is not the same as no consensus when we look at the whole document. Recall that even if an incomplete revision is made RFC, it can itself be replaced by another RFC. Perfection is never attainable, mere improvement is often helpful, and the process is iterative. Lisa