Re: [idn] Document Status?

[Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>]

--On 2002-09-04 01.51 +0000 "Adam M. Costello"
<idn.amc+0@nicemice.net.RemoveThisWord> wrote:

> Disclaimer:  In a few places in this message, when I ask if an alternate
> phrasing would be less confusing, I am not offering to make changes to
> the draft.  Paul and Patrik and I would have to discuss it, and I would
> understand if they think it's too late for that.

Adam, the documents are with IESG, and as that is the case it is
_extremely_ confusing and bad to have the wg continue to discuss wording
changes. The documents are worded as they are, period.

If issues are rised by the IESG, or by other means, which makes the AD
request wording changes, _then_ is the time to discuss wordings.

We in this wg should definitly not discuss wordings when the IESG is
already working on one specific version of the document.

Only on explicit request from the AD, which then have noticed IESG that "a
new version is coming".

I have, as document co-editor, not seen any such request from the AD.

    paf, as document editor, but with experience from IESG work