Just to make a long-delayed decision ... Based on responses to my question to TAPS about whether draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-udp should be folded into draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage, I am seeing no support in the working group for that, and reasons why the draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-udp draft is useful without reference to the draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage.
For these reasons, I ask that the authors submit an updated draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage draft, taking into account the ballot comments from Eric, Mirja, Ben, and Benoit. I see that the draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-udp draft has already been updated to reflect comments received during balloting. I'll send the Approved e-mails for both drafts as a set. Thanks to everyone who provided input. Spencer, as AD On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 11:47 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF < [email protected]> wrote: > Dear TAPS working group, > > Multiple ADs have asked why these two drafts aren't a single draft, in > their ballots. Those are non-blocking comments, but I'd like to explore > that, before making a decision about what should happen, and when. > > It occurs to me that these ADs are reading both drafts pretty much > back-to-back in preparation for balloting during IESG Evaluation. > > If people reading the two drafts back-to-back find the split to be a > distraction, I'd like to understand the views of the working group as to > how often you expect people to read both drafts, in order to do TAPS. > > I could imagine that people working on complete TAPS APIs might need to > read both drafts. > > What about other folks you expect to read these documents? Do you expect > that some communities only need to read one of them? > > Thanks in advance for any thoughts you can share. > > Spencer, as responsible AD for TAPS >
_______________________________________________ Taps mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
