"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[email protected]> writes:
Chris -
[... trimmed out the restated points ...]
I also strongly object to your statement below: " I've asked for cases that this draft would break things, not whether it has warts or not." This suggests (intentionally or not) that so long as a draft doesn't break anything it is OK to consider it for adoption. I hope we have a higher bar than that.
No, I really don't think it suggests that if you read my email on this. I think it's pretty obviously that I'm only talking about this draft, and specifically in the context of there having already been a great deal of discussion already during the adoption call. I am specifically asking that people not rehash that discussion again is all. What one can probably safely infer though, by the email, is that it's looking to the chair like there is rough consensus to adopt the draft. The bar is not as high for adoption as it is for WGLC, and so the consensus can be rather rough. Adoption is no guarantee of publication. In fact, one could imagine someone (perhaps from the objecting group) writing an *info* track document that concisely describes how to tie together existing IS-IS and OSPF technologies to more cleanly solve the same problems this draft is targeting, if that is indeed possible, this possibility has certainly been suggested in some emails. One could then imagine this new document is seen by (a rough consensus of) the WG as a better, cleaner route to take, and so the WG publishes the new document content (either as a newly adopted document, or as large modifications to the existing adopted document) instead. Thanks, Chris. [as wg chair] _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
