On 11/3/20 15:12, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: [....]
The call for comments is closed and I believe people had ample time to review the document and make comments.
Shouldn't the datatracker state be updated?
Till then, authors have been working on addressing the received comments, and updating the document. Some occasional new questions or points are been raised, but I don't see anything wrong with this. This may happen after the WGLC (e.g. during AD review, during IETF last call, during IESG review, and when the RFC is published via email or errata).
How come consensus was declared before there was agreement on the changes to address the received feedback?
e.g., what if the updates do not satisfy the folks providing comments during WGLC?
Reviewing all the diff on all versions of the document, I don't see large technical changes that would require a formal review of those changes though a second WG last call. Except one change regarding the processing of the upper layer, that has recently been raised by Chris. Let's see the solution on this. Other than that, the changes are: - some editorial clarifications - removal of OAM references & counters (Greg's comment) - large editorial changes in the PSP section to provide more clarification and context and explicit the consequences. But with no change to the technical behavior. Do you see a need for a formal review of some changes?
I do see a need for a second WGLC, because my understanding is that several comments from wg participants have not been addressed.
I'd rather have a second WGLC and have the wg ship a document that the wg largely feels comfortable with, as opposed to have wg participants rehash the same discussions during IETF LC because they were dismissed during WGLC.
Thanks, -- Fernando Gont e-mail: ferna...@gont.com.ar || fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
