On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 09:36:50AM -0500, Lou Berger wrote:
> Rob,
> 
> I think we're going in circles here. We have one camp that wants to replace
> the current module with pre 09 and is unwilling to discuss compromise, and
> another camp that wants 08 published as is and has been waiting for the
> working group and authors to submit aversion to the IESG for publication
> based on the last call that completed in November.

It seems the group in favor of pre 09 is in favor of it because the
solution integrates with YLbis, i.e., _one_ way to represent schema
information.

> The mail I sent that started this thread was sent with the hope of finding a
> compromise. As you and Martin seem uninterested in discussing a compromise,
> I not sure if it's worth pursuing this thread. If I have misread your mails,
> and you are open to compromise then we should continue this thread.

I assume the group in favor of pre 09 finds it difficult to
'compromise' on something that does not provide the benefit of
integrating with YLbis.
 
> If not and there is no interest in finding a compromise in the working group
> and by the authors, I guess we're back to the plan of publishing 08 and
> looking forward to protests.

To investigate the possibility of a compromise, we need to understand
what both groups find unacceptable and where there is room for finding
common grounds.

- For the pre 09 'camp', it seems integration with YLbis is the key
  technical requirement that is driving them.

What is the key technical critical issue for the other camp?

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>

_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Reply via email to