Dear Mr Decraene,
At 12:58 AM 28-02-2020, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote:
1) People have the right to express, including to hum sometimes, but
decision is not based on the number of "+1".
Do you have the impression that the decision is based on some voting
scheme? (Assuming the decision was made in the first place...) If
so, could you please help me see what makes you feel so?
My comment about the above was a response to the comment at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/nIAqSeZJKq64QHbyy_ZrNqk_CXg/
2) As regards to the timing, the duration of the call for comments
has indeed elapsed.
If your comment is related to the actual work, as you may have seen,
there has been a high number of comments on the list so there is
work to be done on the resolution of the comments. The more
comments, the more time. The harder the comment, the more time. I
can't provide or force people to provide an ETA for the resolutions
of comments. I think that working on improving the document is more
important than a few weeks delay. BTW, I'm not aware of specific
timing requirement to advance a document to RFC. Closest things I've
seen is "SOON" [1] and "timely" [2]
I enquired about the working group process. I don't see anything in
the reference to RFC 2026 about Working Group procedures. The second
reference is to an Internet-Draft about the definition of the word
"timely". As far as I am aware, that Internet-Draft is not part of
IETF Working Group procedures.
If your question is related to formal state, is your point that the
datatracker state should have been moved from " In WG Last Call " to
" Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC ". If so, I tend to
agree with you. Could/will also be " Doc Shepherd Follow-up
Underway" at some point.
That been said, as I've said on the list, the end of the WG LC is
not the end of the ability for the WG to make technical comments on
the list. [3]. One example may be the latest comment from Chris Bowers.
3) Your specific questions been answered, it's not crystal clear to
me what are you trying to achieve with your email. Do you believe
the document should advance faster, slower, not advance? That your
comments were not adequately answered? (although I'm not seen any
comment from your side on the mailing list). Please help me
understand your root concern.
My question was about when the the Working Group Last Call ends. I
don't view it as appropriate to determine whether the document should
advance faster or slower as I am not responsible to make such a determination.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
