Thanks Alvaro. Heshan On Wed, Apr 3, 2024, 4:54 AM Alvaro Retana <[email protected]> wrote:
> Replying because you directred the question to me…but these are questions > for the chairs. > > On April 2, 2024 at 5:50:57 PM, 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]> 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
