On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 4:59 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.bars...@nokia.com>wrote:

> On 2/17/14 9:17 AM, ext Jungkee Song wrote:
>  On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Arthur Barstow 
> <art.bars...@nokia.com<mailto:
>> art.bars...@nokia.com>> wrote:
>>     The only process requirement for a FPWD is that the group record
>>     consensus to publish it. However, it's usually helpful if the FPWD
>>     is feature complete from a breadth perspective but there is no
>>     expectation the FPWD is complete from a depth perspective. As
>>     such, if there are missing features, it would be good to mention
>>     that in the ED and/or file related bugs.
>> I believe things are mostly addressed in a breadth perspective albeit
>> quite a few issues are still being discussed and sorted out. We are
>> currently drafting the ED and thought the F2F is sort of a right time to
>> have a consensus for FPWD but think it'll be nicer if we can make it even
>> before that to get a wider review as soon as possible.
> Given the broad interest in this spec, I think it would be helpful to move
> toward FPWD "as soon as possible". Would you please give a "rough
> guestimate" on when you think spec can ready for a CfC to publish a FPWD?

I've been waiting until we have all the algorithms filled in. It's a
non-sensical document until then.

Reply via email to