On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 03:15:30PM +0000, Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL wrote: > On 11/11/20, 10:09, "OPSAWG on behalf of Toerless Eckert" > <opsawg-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of t...@cs.fau.de> wrote: > > >> This is really a win-win opportunity. The PCAP developers need a > place that helps them formally > >> state extensions and they need a way to not trip over one another on > extension numbers. > >> Does that mean we have to take the doc as it is? No. But changes > should simply be > >> by consensus, and I doubt you will find a lot of consensus for > frivolous changes. > > > > Let me know which of my asks you think is frivolous. > > Since you asked - I find your "ask" to change the format *at this point* > frivolous.
What do you mean with "format" ? And could you explain to me why it is frivolous to raise concerns/asks now ? > I recommend adopting this draft as-is. > > If the WG down the road develops a *consensus* to change the format, so be it. Btw: This is not constrained to WG decision. WG documents are subject to IEETF approval and IESG approval. Hence the risk of tailend issues if a document thats seemingly only to be blessed is adopted as a WG document. Cheers Toerless _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
