I agree with taking the document to WGLC if the authors take the TURN discovery usage out of this document and leave it to another task of a generic service discovery mechanism. It's weird to have two different service discovery mechanisms. If the authors think their TURN discovery mechanism is good, then how about writing it in a separate proposal for service discovery (not limited to TURN usage), and we will have several candidate drafts.
Xie Xie, Haibin >-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] >On Behalf Of David A. Bryan >Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 5:23 PM >To: Rosen, Brian >Cc: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] WGLC on draft-ietf-p2psip-base-06 > >I know Brian's call here is in response to Cullen formally >objecting to Robert about my taking time to confirm the sense >of the room on list, but I think we need to apply process >rules uniformly here, regardless of who it is that wants the >WG to move on their schedule. > >I think the WG is being pushed to skip a step. I would like to >formally ask that the WGLC be started after adequate time has >been given to respond to my poll for the sense of the mailing >list on wether the document is ready to go to WGLC. > >This WG just had a very active discussion (started by one of >the editors of this draft, actually) about allowing adequate >time for the list to review hums. A week was deemed the >minimal acceptable time. >Hiroshima was a very exceptional meeting. Very few of our >regular attendees were there. As far as I know, only one of >the authors of this draft was present. Both chairs and many of >the other major contributors were not present. > >In light of these facts, while one could argue the hum was a >"sense of the room" question, rather than a consensus call >(and therefore needs no list confirmation), I felt it did. I >was the chair tasked with the work of listening to the audio, >assembling minutes, and confirming hums on list. I didn't feel >enough participants were present for the chairs or AD to say >the room really reflected the WG. I made a decision to send >email asking for list confirmation if we should go to WGLC out >of an abundance of caution. One can argue I didn't have to or >shouldn't have asked the list for confirmation, but I felt it >was the right thing to do, and issued the call for comments as >chair. For consistency we should allow time for folks to comment. > >I understand this is a minor and procedural point. If folks >care they can object once we go to WGLC, of course. However, >considering how long this document has been on the table, and >the long periods of time the editors have sometimes allowed to >pass between revisions, waiting five more days to officially >start WGLC does not adversely impact the work of the group and >is the right thing to do to ensure consistent process is followed. > >(That said, please folks, start reviewing now!!! The editors need your >comments!!!) > >To make it clear to the WG, I personally support taking this >document to WGLC (and have indicated as such before) largely >as an impetus to get reviewers and WG participants to comment >on the document, which in my opinion still needs some work, >but needs reviews to get that work done. However I do not feel >all participants have been given adequate time to voice >disagreement with taking this to WGLC, and feel we need to >allow time for that. > >David > >On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 6:28 PM, Rosen, Brian ><[email protected]> wrote: >> This message announces a Working Group Last Call on >> draft-ietf-p2psip-base-06. Due to the size of the draft and >the lack >> of extensive reviews, the WGLC will run until Dec 11th. Please get >> your comments in ASAP. Those of you who have committed to >review the >> document in depth, this is your deadline, and we would >appreciate your >> review before the last minute. >> >> Brian >> <as co-chair> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> P2PSIP mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip >> >_______________________________________________ >P2PSIP mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip > _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
