On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 9:46 PM, Ryan Sleevi <[email protected]> wrote:
> That's a whole lot of issues, and some of them questionably justified. It > also seems non-ideal to suggest that these issues be closed without > discussion on the list, as that's not very transparent. > I certainly didn't mean to imply that these would be closed without discussion. The idea of meeting up was just to get concrete proposals in front of the WG faster. > Given WGLC has completed, and it seems some of them fundamentally redefine > the protocol or implementation, do you have a suggested priority of issues > to discuss, from those you view as most clearly justified to least clearly > justified? > I think you're over-stating the impacts here. The overall shape of the protocol is untouched by these proposals, and many of them are just cleanup for a document that's made it through 25 revisions. But I'm happy to provide some taxonomy / plan of attack. I'll send something around tomorrow. --Richard
_______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
