Dear Sabine: Thank you for your note. I think it is very important that the WG participates in the reviews to finish this piece of work. Absent such robust participation, I am at a loss on how we can progress this work.
I will really like an identified reviewer (if not Luis) to let the chairs know so we can help facilitate the work. Thank you. On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 10:28 AM Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay) <sabine.randriam...@nokia-bell-labs.com> wrote: > Hi Vijay, > > > > Thank you for the reminder. A new version 13 is under edition and > addresses the review of Danny. It will also address the second review > comments once they will be available. > > > > Thanks, > > Sabine > > > > *From:* alto <alto-boun...@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Vijay Gurbani > *Sent:* Friday, September 25, 2020 4:59 PM > *To:* IETF ALTO <alto@ietf.org> > *Subject:* [alto] Status of alto-unified-props: Not encouraging? > > > > All: The unified-properties draft is now done with its WGLC. (In fact, it > is well past done. WGLC ended on Aug 7, 2020 [0].) > > I will be shepherding this draft, however, I see a problem with it. > > I note that the draft only received one WGLC review , and this was from > Danny [1]. My understanding from list discussion [2] is that Luis was to > provide a second review, but I do not see the second WGLC review. If I am > mistaken, please let me know and I will apologize profusely. In the event > that there has not been a second WGLC review ... > > If a second review is provided, please be advised that the draft will not > move ahead. Since other drafts have a dependency on this draft, a lack of > movement of unified-properties implies that progress of dependent drafts > stops as well. > > I will kindly request Luis to provide a WGLC no later than Oct 09, two > weeks from now. If other list members want to review the draft in addition > to Luis, please let Jan and me know. We do need one more quality review > for unified-properties to move ahead. If a second review is not provided > by Oct 09, the chairs will take this as advice that the work is no longer > important to the WG, and the WG will have to decide on the fate of > dependent documents. > > @Authors: It looks like Danny's comments have not yet been incorporated in > a new revision. Danny reviewed version -12 and that appears to be the > latest version in the IETF archives. Please notify the WG on your plans to > update the draft based on Danny's comments. > > [0] > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/jhPmZR4UKpiIwA_tC2s9b9YZ8Mk/ > [1] > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/YVaCXE7IgXOqWpq-17GV-gbiYwo/ > [2] > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/b0xwfQUVnYp_o58tJO32MF9p42I/ > > Thanks, > > - vijay >
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list alto@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
