Joel, Benson, hello.
I agree that there has not been a lengthy discussion during the session but some people reacted to the proposal and expressed their support.
Joel, on the specific point that a discussion in a meeting is informative, I fully agree, and the point of our e-mail is to continue the discussion on the list. We explicitly say that this is a proposal and that we are open to comments.
Thanks -m Le 25/11/2015 01:19, Benson Schliesser a écrit :
I think this may be a useful "procedural bar" and if so then I'd like to see it implemented in other WGs, too... And, to some extent, it may be within the prerogative of the WG chairs. But I am also surprised by the lack of discussion. And I don't see any substantial conversation documented in the proceedings of the last meeting. I'd like to understand why this threshold makes sense to the WG, assuming it does... -Benson On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 7:11 PM, Joel M. Halpern <j...@joelhalpern.com <mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com>> wrote: 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 BESS@ietf.org <mailto:BESS@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org <mailto:BESS@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org <mailto:BESS@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
