|
Thank you all for the discussion. The deadline having passed, here is a summary. I believe there is rough consensus for keeping the appendix (which is indeed normative) and the main body of the document together, with the addition of a clarifying paragraph at the beginning of
the appendix about possible future updates. The text was worked on the lists here and finalized during today's interim, where no additional comments or objections were raised. Additionally, the rest of the IESG who was informed in parallel of this call for comments of the updates following IESG evaluation has not raised any additional comments or blocking DISCUSS from
the changes. Authors: please go ahead and submit v-08 including the additional paragraph.
Thanks again, Francesca
From: Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Hi all, I have reviewed this thread [1], and the updates to the document:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-core-problem-details/ . First of all, thanks everybody for the reviews, the discussion and for the work on the document - I do believe the document is in better shape now. V-05 was reviewed by the IESG, and responses to AD reviews have resulted in v-06. Changes from v-06 to v-07 are the result to Harald's Last Call review and consequent discussion, which has happened over the Last-Call
mailing list (cc’ing the CoRE and ART mailing lists). For this reason I believe that the community is aware of the changes, and people who are interested have been able to follow and participate in the discussion, and that a second Last Call is not needed,
as it would only add a "process delay" and not help progress. I also want to note that I have alerted the IESG of the recent updates and my evaluation of not needing another Last Call, added the document as a management item to next telechat to make sure all the ADs are
aware, and welcome updated ballots following v-07 changes. Regarding the comments received, it is my opinion that most comments have been addressed: the only outstanding point I can see people not agreeing on is if the Appendix should be split into its own document or
kept as is. With the basis that keeping the tag in was what the WG agreed on, and with the knowledge that we have both a mechanism to address future updates to the tag, if needs arise, and to update the reference in the IANA registry, if the problem details
doc is itself updated, in the interest of progressing this work without creating further delays, I suggest to keep the document as is. If anybody has significant objections to the summary above, or substantive unresolved issues with draft-ietf-core-problem-details-07 that would benefit from more discussion, please raise them by July 6th. Thanks all again for your input and work, Francesca [1]
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/21YQX6ZIxjvQCHYxrNci-rDETaU/ |
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
