Bert,
[clipped...]
> Two points:
> - the extensions to LDP were found to be in space that requires
> IETF Consensus, and so Scott and I asked for an IETF Last Call
> on the document. That is an explicit OPEN process
Quoting from the e-mail you sent recently:
If not enough people (and 10 is the absolute minumum, but having seen
the attendence of TWEG sessions, I'd expect 25 or more) can speak up
to state one of:
- I read it and I am positive, it is good stuff
- I read it and I see no problems or objections
- I read it but I cannot determine if it is bad, but I can see that
what has been discussed in the WG is indeed in the document
- I read it and I have these nits/objections...
- I did not read it cause this is not relevant to my xxx job/work/function
- I did not read it cause I think this is nonsense
Then I get the feeling that we're just allowing a small group of
people push their petty-project through the process. That seems NOT
good to me. We need serious WG participation in reading and commenting
in one of these forums above, before we can declare that we have WG
consensus on a document to be presented to IESG for approval as RFC
(in whatever form).
Since (as you said) the extensions required IETF consensus, and
with the above in mind could you please share with the rest of
us the information on how many people spoke up about the draft
to state one of:
- I read it and I am positive, it is good stuff
- I read it and I see no problems or objections
- I read it but I cannot determine if it is bad, but I can see that
what has been discussed in the WG is indeed in the document
- I read it and I have these nits/objections...
- I did not read it cause this is not relevant to my xxx job/work/function
- I did not read it cause I think this is nonsense
Yakov.