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 email@example.com https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod