On 18/10/12 10:09 AM, "Noel Chiappa" <[email protected]> wrote: > > But there is very little for the WG to do on these documents. They don't > cover any _new_ ground, which the WG might need to discuss - all they are > (effectively) are high-level descriptions of what's already been done. They could certainly get review by the WG. Text could be offered by the WG on sections that are deemed unclear, or incomplete. eg section 5.4 (LCAF), 6.3 (state), parts of 6.4, 7.3.1, 7.4 etc etc of lisp-architecture. > > Yes, I need to get moving on them, but what exactly is it that the WG is I would like to see the WG get moving on them. As you say they are already high level descriptions of what has already been done. So there IS expertise in the WG that could easily provide you with text for you to massage into the document. > going to do? Or, to put it another way, how is _not_ doing other things going > to speed up in any way the architecture document set? There is _much_ to do on the architecture document. This is a (to use the vernacular) "stick" to get the WG to invest the time they said they would in adoption of this draft. I apologize that it isn't a popular approach, but given the IESG desire one that we have to live with for now. I will bring tim-tams to Atlanta as reward for action :-) (if that helps) > > Since this document is already called for by the charter, I would think > looking at it would be an entirely plausible use of meeting time. > Let's see some WG ML traffic on it first. Cheers Terry
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
