Hi folks, It turns out that the doi folks had a draft update in flight that I didn't know about when I put the -03 version on the agenda. When they brought it to my attention, I told them that the -03 had been considered and sent them a copy of what the IESG secretary had by that point sent to the RFC Editor, along with the note that the RFC Editor would no doubt be getting back to them. Not surprisingly, they want this to be reconsidered based on the changes between -03 and -04. Is there a standard thing to do in these cases? My quick reading is that the -04 is better than the -03 in a number of ways, but that it doesn't change the basic issue: the community of use here is different from that assumed by the IETF tree and that this belongs in a different tree as a result. If we put it back on the agenda in its -04 form, I would recommend the same IESG note. Given that this draft is an improvement over the others, though, that may not be the only view. I can see doing three things: saying "done deal, sorry" to them in order to avoid a precedent of these things re-cycling forever; putting it back on the agenda with the same note and having a discussion over whether the changes are sufficient to meet 2717; given that a decision has been rendered, telling them they need to resubmit a "new" draft via the RFC editor. None of them appeal to me much. Any other answers or advice on which answer is less worse? regards, Ted Hardie