Re: [yam] [Fwd: RFC 5321, Erratum 1543]

[Tony Hansen <[e-mail]>]

I missed seeing most of this thread until today. Sorry -- I *really* 
need to get a better MUA.

The *primary* thing that this working group should be considering right 
now is the template that we are going to be sending to the IESG, and 
with it the pre-evaluation for RFC 1652.

The working group should *not* be looking at errata for 5321. It should 
*not* be looking at errata for 3798. It *should* have been looking at 
1652, whose WGLC just finished and hardly anyone deigned to respond to 
the issues that were outstanding there. (See other message coming out 
shortly.)

I am *not* going to declare any consensus on this issue -- 5321 isn't on 
my radar at this point. RFC 5321 is coming up again soon enough in our 
queue -- this topic can be revisited at that point if there is anything 
left to be revisited.

	Tony Hansen
	your usually-friendly neighborhood co-chair

Barry Leiba wrote:
> As I see it, it's clear where the consensus stands on this, and the
> discussion has gone into the realm of wasting the working group's time
> and effort.  I ask the chairs to declare whether they think there's
> consensus on this issue, and, thus, end the discussion, or they think
> more discussion is needed in order to reach consensus.