On 1/15/16 4:27 AM, Karen Seo wrote:
There are a number of issues (for the non-log components) that WG members have asked be addressed that the existing 6962-bis text doesn't cover.
It's becoming extremely difficult to gauge consensus because we're getting so few comments on these proposals, and I think we're getting so few comments because it probably seems to many participants that we (the working group) are being pecked to death by ducks. I'm particularly concerned that we're being asked to do work that is technically correct but unlikely to be actually helpful to implementers (who, it should be pointed out, have implementations underway without these documents). I am generally skeptical of the value of non-specification documents, particularly given that we're living in a time where working group charter proposals are getting scrupulous, detailed review. My actual concern, however, is that this is precisely the sort of thing that is slowing down the production of implementable specifications and causing palpable harm to the IETF and to individual working groups. We have said on some number of occasions that our plan is to get the -bis document through working group last call and backfill any parts that are missing. I'm not seeing a compelling reason to revisit that decision. Changes to the -bis draft should be ones that address problems with the technical correctness of the existing contents. Asking the authors to restructure the -bis draft so that you can produce some other document does not fall within this framework. Also, to be clear, we are not going to treat silence as support. We need review and comments from working group participants. Melinda _______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
