Hello everyone,
not a chair of the VFD WG but I remember we made the conscious decision to
_split_ the fundamentals/principles ("base") from some nitty-gritty details
like the transport mechanism.
> I would assume that, since both documents were adopted simultaneously, WG
> consensus was that two documents (and not a merged one) is what made sense.
I agree on this view.
Regards, Marc
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 00:33:48 +0000, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) wrote:
> Alvaro,
>
> Thanks again ― Closing the loop, please see inline.
>
>> On Sep 27, 2015, at 7:16 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> On 9/27/15, 4:54 PM, "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Carlos:
>>
>> Hi!
>>>> I will keep this document in AD Evaluation (and not return it to the WG)
>>>> at least until a decision has been made.
>>>
>>> Sounds good ― please let us know what’s next about this to reach that
>>> decision.
>>
>> That is a WG decision, so I expect the Chairs to let me know when they
>> think consensus has been reached.
>>
>
> I would assume that, since both documents were adopted simultaneously, WG
> consensus was that two documents (and not a merged one) is what made sense.
> We can see if there is any WG indication otherwise.
>
> Jeff?
>
>>
>> Note that I don’t expect a formal consensus call or a new WGLC (based on
>> a potential merge) ― unless the Chairs think it is needed. Given that
>> the documents already have WG consensus, I would expect my suggestion to
>> be resolved quickly.
>>
>> BTW, I read your justification for not merging in the thread about
>> draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base. Thanks for that!
>
> Thank you for reading it!
>
> ― Carlos.
>
>>
>> Alvaro.
>
>
