On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 8:57 AM, Joe Touch <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 10/6/2016 8:34 AM, Sam Aldrin wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 8:13 AM, Joe Touch <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> The original email did propose that we continue to evaluate existing >> encapsulations, but NOT that they be taken out of the WG and published as >> individual informational submissions. >> > Correct. Call to go independent route lies with authors, not WG, AFAIK. > > We can't force them to publish as independent, but we do need to decide > that we are not proceeding with the docs as WG items or not. > I do not think anyone is making or forcing a choice for authors. As mentioned in the email, there were technical objections, which didn't help to reach rough consensus by the WG. Hence, the plan to have discussion leading to Virtual Interim, so we, as WG, could decide on next steps.
If there are *better* steps which could be undertaken to make progress, would love to hear them. -sam > > > Joe >
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
