It is not the lack of expertise that worries me so much as the low probability of deployment without interest by either a major operator or a regulator.
If this was an IRTF project I would be less concerned. Stewart > On 2 Apr 2024, at 22:50, Hesham ElBakoury <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Alvaro, > My understanding from RF8789 is that it requires WG last call but not rough > consensus. I am also not clear on how you measure rough consensus? > > I think the sat-int email list has satellites experts who can provide their > feedback. If this not the case, and if RTGWG does not have satellites > experts, then how we can make well-informed decision about this draft without > asking for help from external reviewers who can join the RTGWG if needed. > > Thanks > Hesham > > > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2024, 1:21 PM Alvaro Retana <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> On April 2, 2024 at 3:10:09 PM, Hesham ElBakoury wrote: >> >> Hesham: >> >> Hi! >> >> > Can we get external reviewers to look at this draft? >> >> That's a question for the chairs. >> >> Given that all IETF stream documents require consensus (rfc8789), I >> don't know how an external review figures into that. >> >> >> Alvaro. >> >> >> > On Tue, Apr 2, 2024, 7:49 AM Alvaro Retana wrote: >> > > Hi! >> > > >> > > I have the same concerns as Stewart. >> > > >> > > We don’t have the experience or expertise to review the document, >> > > including the assumptions. This topic is interesting, but without the >> > > ability to review it properly, I don’t think this draft (or any other >> > > related work) should be adopted. >> > > >> > > Alvaro. > _______________________________________________ > rtgwg mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
