Helo, Since we've been through this for a while (originally) and this has been quiet for ~1 month... let's call this done and move to the next step.
1) there was lots of discussion on the topic at hand 2) lots of that discussion was not about acceptance/rejection of the idea into the WG 3) lots of people contributed I do think we should continue to have this discussion more officially around a draft, the wg discussion leads me to believe this is the right course... can the authors spin a newly named version and we can start discussing the topic / changes? I think if, in the end, the wg decides to abandon the work that's also fine, but we should have a more structured chat about the topic, that happens around a draft. -chris co-chair On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Murphy, Sandra <[email protected]> wrote: > Speaking as wg co-chair > > Of course revision and new request for acceptance is possible. > > Even arguing some more leading to acceptance of draft as is is a possibility. > > Some commentors specifically requested that the discussion be added to some > existing draft. > > Trying to judge wg desire of a way to proceed. > > > --Sandy > > > From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on behalf of Andy Newton > [[email protected]] > > Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 4:56 PM > > To: Murphy, Sandra; Alexey Melnikov; [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [sidr] WG acceptance call for draft-ymbk-rpki-grandparenting > > > > > > > Are the chairs not allowing the draft authors to address the issues and try > again? > > > > -andy > > > > > > From: <Murphy>, Sandra <[email protected]> > > Date: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 12:10 PM > > To: Alexey Melnikov <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" > <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [sidr] WG acceptance call for draft-ymbk-rpki-grandparenting > > > > > > > <!-- > p > {margin-top:0; > margin-bottom:0} > --> > BODY {direction: ltr;font-family: Arial;color: #000000;font-size: 10pt;}P > {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} > > Speaking as wg co-chair: > > > > Certainly a very lively acceptance call! > > > > The chairs do not see that there was consensus that the wg should adopt this > draft. > > > > But there was ample evidence that the wg was interested in the issue - by the > wg spending lots of time discussing the issue. > > > > So that leaves the chairs with an ambivalent message. The wg is very > interested in the topic but not in adopting a draft that would record any > decisions about the topic. > > > > What would the wg like to do now? Particularly those who disagreed with the > content of the draft - if you would dislike the recommendations, are you OK > with no recommendations instead? > > > > --Sandy, speaking as wg co-chair > > > > > > From: > > [email protected] [[email protected]] on behalf of Alexey Melnikov > [[email protected]] > > Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2012 2:12 PM > > To: > [email protected] > > Subject: [sidr] WG acceptance call for draft-ymbk-rpki-grandparenting > > > > > > Hi, > > On behalf of SIDR WG chairs I would like to initiate 2 weeks acceptance call > for draft-ymbk-rpki-grandparenting starting from today, August 4th. Please > send your positive or negative feedback to the mailing list or directly to > chairs. > > > > > Thank you, > Alexey > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > sidr mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
