On 6/27/07, Danny McPherson <danny@tcb.net> wrote:
[BCP discussion deleted]
Either way, if there are requirements or recommendations in this document that don't appear to represent community consensus, or even WG consensus, which appears to be the case here, then the working group needs to reconsider those, not publish the document as Informational so that they can be ignored. -danny
I was with you up to there. I was satisfied, and I think the chairs were, that we had reached sufficient consensus to progress. Do you have specific issues where you think we failed to achieve consensus. (other than the status about which I am ambivalent) ? Also, we very carefully avoided creating "requirements". They are capability lists. Thanks, ---George Jones P.S. I've tried to clean up the addresses that are bouncing on the list. Apologies to those that have been posting for the # of bounces.