Martin,
On 4/3/20 18:02, Martin Vigoureux wrote:
WG,
I wanted to bring more context to my decision.
This document has received a lot of valuable reviews and comments which
improved it. That served me as a base to determine consensus on the
overall document.
The point I'd like to insist on is the one I was mentioning in my
previous e-mail. In my view, the remaining prominent discussion (and
tension) point was about the text of 8200, its implications on the
optional PSP capability, and the ramifications of it.
I have determined there is rough consensus, in SPRING, on the way to
read the specific text of 8200, but also that certain aspects go beyond
SPRING and would benefit from being discussed with a wider community.
I'd like to remind that this was a WG Chair level decision. Indeed,
Bruno still needs to produce the shepherd write-up and submit the
document for publication.
May I ask what's the status of this I-D? -
On one hand, both Bruno and you declared consensus to move it forward.
On another hand, the authors keep making changes to address comments
(good) so what the wg will ship will be very different from the document
on which you claimed consensus. Besides, the datatracker lists the
document as "in WGLC", as opposed to "Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead" or
"WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up".
Last, but not least, are you planning to do a second WGLC?
Thanks,
--
Fernando Gont
e-mail: fernando@xxxxxxxxxxx || fgont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1
