On 31/07/2017 10:53, Ted Lemon wrote: > Daniel wanted to do another update, but we needed to sync up first, and > I don't know where he is at with that now, but I think it would be > reasonable to put the CFA on hold pending that update. There have been > some good comments already, though; in particular, I think Juliusz' > point that it would be nice to actually try some of this in practice is > good, and is what I'm working on now. I think having that done before > the document is adopted is a pretty high bar, but I don't really care > either way. > > That said, what I said in the working group is that we've been spinning > our wheels on this for several years, and I wanted to know if the scope > of this is reasonable and is what the working group wants to take on. > If it's not, then I don't actually know how to proceed.
The point of a CFA is not to have a document that's nearly ready to publish. It's to get agreement that a document is an appropriate direction for the WG to explore, even if it might require substantial work. As part of that, adoption also cedes change control from the authors to the WG. I'd therefore like to leave this in place for now, and request that reviewers re-examine it bearing the above in mind. thanks, Ray _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list email@example.com https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet