On Feb 16, 2012, at 19:52, Don Sturek wrote: > Hi Carsten, > > Somehow, luck is not how I would have described the process. > > I think if you thought it important enough to do a WGLC in November 2011, > you maybe should have made it for longer than a week I did. > and avoided the US > Thanksgiving holiday. As I said, I didn't have that on the radar, so I didn't compensate for both the IETF and the US Thanksgiving Day. Sorry about that. Not including the winter holidays, there were two more months for making comments since. > We had several groups interested in possibly using CoAP but I was holding > off looking at the draft until WGLC. I guess with the response below, the > guidance will be to use what is there else find another solution Wait a minute, maybe there is some underlying confusion here. This last-call is about the CoRE link-format. The link-format spec and the CoAP protocol are rather loosely coupled, technically speaking. CoAP is not even in first WGLC yet (but getting close). If you do need some time beyond the usual two-week WGLC to review the CoAP documents, now probably would be a good time to start the review for "Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)", 31-Oct-11, <draft-ietf-core-coap-08.txt> "Blockwise transfers in CoAP", 15-Feb-12, <draft-ietf-core-block-08.txt> "Observing Resources in CoAP", 14-Feb-12, <draft-ietf-core-observe-04.txt> The core-coap spec hasn't been updated recently and therefore carries the bulk of the remaining open tickets (six); please review them at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/core/trac/report (I recommend the format of report 9.) There are proposals for resolution of most of the remaining tickets, and we would love to receive your input so we can make good technical decisions even before the documents go to WGLC. It is worth pointing out that the main technical substance of the documents has been stable since about March 2011 (core-coap) and since mid-2011 (-observe, -block). Feedback from the multiple implementations has been quite positive, so this should all be stable enough for a thorough review. > (fortunately, the work you are doing can be replaced with other solutions > if does not map to our commercial needs). Why the sour grapes? This WG has a history of being very open and supportive for all technical input received. There is no take-it-or-leave-it at all. But you do have to speak up, or you won't be heard. The best way to contribute to IETF WG work is, indeed, taking part in the work before WGLC. > I think I will have a look at the diffs. I was on the reflector and seem > to recall more than just editorials going in to the specification after > the first WGLC (which I recall at the time being wildly premature with > respect to the maturity of CoAP.....) We did the link-format WGLC in January 2011 because the author thought it was ready and nobody in the WG spoke up to stop it. The feedback was quite positive, and the changes resulting from the review were useful but small. It probably was right to wait for November for the 2nd WGLC because CoAP was still stabilizing, but it turns out there was no impact. I don't understand the comment about maturity, but maybe again you are referring to CoAP -- a WGLC for CoAP in January 2011 might have been rather early indeed. But for now let's stick to the link-format document -- this is what's being last-called this month. It is a short document, and it is mainly about making an existing RFC (RFC 5988) accessible to the CoRE space. Grüße, Carsten _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf