It is clear that the text is not necessary to implement the goals of the draft and it does not fix any technical problems or clarify any of the issues addressed in the document. So this is clearly meant to be lawyer-text of some form. Maybe we should leave writing of such text to lawyers...
Henning On Apr 28, 2009, at 3:25 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
If the proposal is for an Applicability Statement in the sense of RFC 2026, then I certainly vote against the proposition, for the reasons listed in the prior email.Not to speak for the chairs, but my impression is that the intent was not to take such a limited definition, but rather to discuss adding some text to address concerns that had been raised.Could the chairs clarify? --Richard