The chairs and ADs met to look at the results of the consensus call that ended Wednesday and decide the way forward.
First, we would like to offer a couple observations on the raw results from the consensus call: - We had a number of people responding more than once, sometime with different email addresses. Having their name and affiliation in the response helped us removed those duplicate/triplicate/... - Number of unique response: 75 - Question 1: 75 yes, 0 No, few responded put both on experimental track - Question 2: 73 MAP 2 4rd-U This does not reflect at all the results we had in the Paris meeting (about 30 MAP and 20 4rd-U): a) It seems that some of the 4rd-U people who did express support for it in Paris when the same question was asked have not participated in this consensus call. b) the number of MAP responses seem to be inflated, we see a disproportionate number of response from some particular organizations. We also see a large number of responses coming from people who have not participated before in the working group. Also, it is apparent that a number of people have joined the mailing list for the sole purpose of expressing support for MAP. None of the above behaviors do any favors for the working group. We do need participation in the official call for consensus from all the active participants of the working group. As we mentioned before, in such calls, silence is consent. Also, the inflated participation in the consensus call from 'new' members that have never participate in the discussion before, creates noise that makes the results harder to read. Furthermore, we have observed that, even during the call, the analysis of both solutions did continue, and missing elements on both sides have been pointed out. We also observed a willingness of various participants to improve those specs to bring them to a level where we could start a working group last call. As a result, we have decided to approve both MAP and 4rd-U as working group work items. As work items, each document can be further refined until the working group reaches consensus about advancing the documents for IETF review. Because of the history of MAP and 4rd-U, we will designate independent teams of volunteer reviewers to advise the working group about the state of the document sets. Each set will be reviewed by an independent team who are not authors of the MAP and 4rd-U documents. Each review team will consist of three members and will determine when its document set is ready for working group last call. If you are interested in volunteering for one of the review teams, please respond directly to the chairs, indicating your preference for which document to review if you have one. The appointment of the review teams will be entirely up to the chairs. Aside from these appointed reviews, the chairs would naturally appreciate any and all reviews provided, regardless of whether the reviewer(s) participate on a review team. When the document sets are ready for working group last call, the working group will reconsider the question of the publication status: Proposed Standard or Experimental. We will try to consider all document sets for advancement at the same time, but we will not allow a delay in completing one document to hold up the working group indefinitely. - Alain & Yong, WG co-chairs - Ralph & Biran, ADs _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
