On 1/23/15, 5:22 AM, "Scott O. Bradner" <[email protected]> wrote:
>It is the opinion of this chair (Warren having recused himself) that the >ID author >should see if he can do what David suggests (add material summarizing the >problem at the end of the draft) and republish as a non-WG ID. The WG >can revisit >the question of adoption after that is done. We can and will, although we were very much hoping to do this as more of a community and less as two individuals. Ah well - consensus was not met... > >My personal view is that this is useful information (though more details >of the >actual research would be helpful (as Juergen commented) and the IETF >would benefit from the information being published as an RFC but it would >mostly help if the IETF actually made use of the information in some way >to >broaden operator participation - I am not sure how to get there from >here (or from the ID). That¹s exactly the conversation we were hoping this working group would have, which is of course why we submitted the document for adoption. I see this as an opportunity missed, but we¹ll try againŠ Disappointed in Denver, ~Chris _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
