On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 08:24:13PM +0000, Salz, Rich wrote: > * Request to the mailing list "hey, if you have a post-v1-WGLC, tell > us or this may not exist further!" > > That last item deserves some more explanation. We expect to enter WG > last call before IETF-97 in Seoul in November. If there are items you > think we should work on after that, please bring them up here once we > enter WGLC; which is to say around September. We might need to > re-charter, or we might want to just stay together to handle errata > and IETF last call, or we might want to say say we're done and > disband.
Are people really planning to take this to WGLC without there being any operational implementation of this specification - or do people believe there will actually be tested implementations of it, with time to properly assess them, before November? I'd love for us to stop completely reinventing large parts of this asap, but given how many issues have shaken out so far when people go to actually implement this, and the slow progress on implementing some parts of it, and the limited responses to some of the problems raised ... setting this all in stone before November seems ... ambitious? _______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
