WG last call - problem description document

[Brian E Carpenter]

Scott Bradner wrote:
> 
> even though some of Robert Snively's comments might have been good
> to incorporate a while back I do not think we gain a lot from reopening
> the document now - its time to say that the current version gets
> the point across that there is work to do and is a reasonable
> bases for thinking about that work - i.e., its close enough for
> IETF standards work - ship it

I think we could have a long discussion about those comments, but it's been
fairly clear to me that there is no will in the IETF to move in the direction
he suggests. There is a will to clean up and professionalize the IETF's way of
doing business, under its present constitution as an open-access non-voting
organization. That is probably where our efforts should go.

   Brian