Without wanting to be pedantic, I would have expected to see discusison
of this on the list, and determination that the list agreed with it.
Discussion at the meeting is informative, but is not the basis for a WG
decision.
I am also slightly concerned that the working group is creating a
procedural bar (one that does seem reasonable to me) without buyin from
the larger community.
Yours,
Joel
On 11/24/15 6:16 PM, Martin Vigoureux wrote:
Hi Adrian,
indeed, minutes should have been available sooner. situation has been
corrected.
The basic motivation for this is simply to avoid (over)loading the iesg
with documents that have no (and could possibly never have an)
implementation. Or, at least, if every spec gets implemented, it is to
prioritize them.
The discussion happened at the beginning of the meeting. It was on one
of the slides I have presented as part of the WG status.
-m
Le 24/11/2015 17:07, Adrian Farrel a écrit :
Hi Thomas,
It's really hard to enter this discussion with any context.
Could you post the minutes from the meeting and maybe summarise the
points in
favour of this approach?
(Of course, I can listen to the audio when I have some spare time.)
Thanks,
Adrian
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
