> -原始邮件-
> 发件人: "Joel Halpern via Datatracker"
> 发送时间: 2019-10-11 06:56:18 (星期五)
> 收件人: gen-art@ietf.org
> 抄送: draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration@ietf.org, i...@ietf.org,
> reg...@ietf.org
> 主题: [regext] Genart telechat review of
> draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration-11
>
Dan
I had a quick look at the YANG and it does indeed need some work IMHO.
I have posted a separate e-mail listing what I saw.
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: "Dan Romascanu via Datatracker"
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2019 9:39 AM
> Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
> Review result: Ready w
Hello,
Thank you for the further feedback.
In an earlier draft we had the second paragraph of section 7.1 elsewhere in the
document. I believe it was in section 4.2.1.2 which discusses, amongst other
things, how the TTML document timing relates to the RTP timestamps. We
concluded that the docu
Regarding the document status, neither of the emails you pointed to
explains why the document is Informational. I understand from that and
other discussions that there is no desire to make this standards track.
As has been noted, publication of usages of protocol by small groups
is normally h
Thanks for the review Alissa.
Yours,
Daniel
On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 9:22 AM Alissa Cooper wrote:
> Joel, thanks for your review. I entered a No Objection ballot.
>
> Alissa
>
>
> > On Sep 27, 2019, at 2:31 PM, Joel Halpern via Datatracker <
> nore...@ietf.org> wrote:
> >
> > Reviewer: Joel Halpe
Joel,
Let me try one reason why this should not be Standards Track or,
if it should, it isn't ready. It uses, and is dependent on,
terminology for which there is no consensus definition and that
is used to describe different things in the wild. As I think I
suggested one of my earlier notes abou
If we do not have agreement on what the meaning is for the relevant
terms, then either
1) The document should not be an IETF consensus document (which even
Informational publication is)
or
2) The document should be Experimental, indicating explicitly that there
is ambiguity in the terms, and on
Joel,
Agreed. And that is more or less what my notes of two days ago
said. I apparently went into too much detail about the terms
and the issues with them and the messages apparently got lost in
the noise.
best,
john
--On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 13:52 -0400 Joel Halpern Direct
wrote:
>
> If we do not have agreement on what the meaning is for the relevant
> terms, then either
> 1) The document should not be an IETF consensus document (which even
> Informational publication is)
Just a point on this: it's not true.
We have a "consensus" flag in the datatracker, which triggers a
bo
Barry, I have a real problem with us producing a document with WG rough
consensus, IESG approval, but not IETF rough consensus.
People have been complaining about various markings causing confusion
about the status and meaning of documents. This seems a MUCH worse case
than anything I have se
> If I think about it too much, I end up unable to parse the notion of a
> document published on the IETF stream without IETF rough consensus.
And yet they are there today and will continue to be.
b
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www
I have to agree with Joel - but from a different angle.
The "normal process" seems to be that - once an ID is approved at the WG level
by rough consensus - it goes to the IESG and then to the IETF as a whole.
If (for some reason) it does not gain rough consensus from the IETF as a whole
(and th
> If (for some reason) it does not gain rough consensus from the IETF as a
> whole (and this
> seems to be an extreme corner case), then it could be published as an
> individual RFC - but
> should be kicked back to the WG to make this decision.
Oh, yes, absolutely that: at the first cut, it will
In that case, you are talking about a slightly different case - and one not
nearly so hard to wrap my head around.
It would be rare for an ID to get that far before things went that far south,
but it clearly could happen.
Usually, if the ID was a WG chartered item, I would imagine the WG would
--On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 14:19 -0400 Barry Leiba
wrote:
>> If we do not have agreement on what the meaning is for the
>> relevant terms, then either
>> 1) The document should not be an IETF consensus document
>> (which even Informational publication is)
>
> Just a point on this: it's no
15 matches
Mail list logo
