Dear wg and wg chairs (those without and those with hats), My comments on the requirements draft have never been addressed. This thread highlights a dependency that exists between the requirements of this protocol and the design of this protocol. I do not think that (as engineers) should embrace the backward nature of this situation.
I object to this draft until we can mature the drafts it depends on. Eric ----- Original Message ----- From: Randy Bush [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 08:32 PM To: Sandra Murphy <[email protected]> Cc: sidr wg <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [sidr] WGLC for draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-05 > The newest protocol draft came out on 7 Sep and I asked the working > group to "look at this draft right away" because it would be discussed > at the interim meeting. After eight days with no comments, a wglc > seemed a good idea. Sad that our lives need a wglc to produce > participation, but it is what it is. i note that you got one actual reivew, which is good. the only other stuff i have seen is people telling the chairs what the process should be, embarrassing. i promise a detailed re-read in the next days. randy _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
