Re: [apps-discuss] AD sponsoring draft-masotta-tftpexts-windowsize-opt-09

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

>> 3. I believe it is *not* right to say that the document cannot go
>> forward unless &WG accepts it as a working group product.  If they do,
>> that's very nice.  If they reject it because of fundamental flaws that
>> have not been adequately addressed, then loop back to #2.  But if they
>> simply don't want it, that isn't a valid reason to stop the document
>> from progressing.
>
> Hazard to the Internet?

Hazard to the Internet would be a fundamental flaw that would have to
be addressed, of course.

> But I don't understand why a protocol extension that would be considered
> harmful must be published by the RFC Editor.

Nothing considered harmful.  I thought I was clear that those things
need to be sorted out.

I'm just saying that lack of interest from some particular working
group isn't a reason to block publication.  Serious flaws, or lack of
interest from everyone... that's different.

Barry