Speaking as a WG member, I support having separate drafts. Like Les said, this is helpful to allow issues specific to each of the proposals to be discussed independently.
> I appreciate that it is more work to write/progress two drafts than one draft, but I think the importance of the extensions warrants the extra effort. For the chairs, we will do our best to facilitate the process, whether it involves one draft or two. Thanks, Yingzhen On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 9:01 AM Christian Hopps <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Aug 20, 2024, at 19:00, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg= > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > Also, we are discussing modifying the “crown jewel” of link state > protocols – the reliable Update Process. It behooves us as a WG to do so > with a great deal of diligence. Having separate drafts allows issues > specific to each of the proposals to be discussed independently – which is > helpful. > > I appreciate that it is more work to write/progress two drafts than one > draft, but I think the importance of the extensions warrants the extra > effort. > > [as wg member] > > I support this position. I think the expansion of the scope of the > original draft is not beneficial to getting the either of the 2 things done > more efficiently. > > > Finally, doing so voluntarily would immediately resolve the issue and > allow the real work of the WG to begin. > > Please. > > Thanks, > Chris. > [as wg-member] > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
