Stephen,
I asked a fairly simple question about your pressing for a Last Call.
As nearly as I can tell from your response, citing the requirements document
and extensive background, you are in fact taking the view that there is
sufficient working group consensus to assert that the document is ready for
Last Call.
While, no, your note indicates that the issues being raised will not be
"ignored" their import appears to be rather minimal to you, no matter that
some go to fundamental points.
Please clarify.
d/
ps. As many histories, such as IPv6, show, the mere passage of years says
nothing about the maturity of a specification.
Stephen Farrell wrote:
Dave,
Now that you've raised a bunch of issues, (thanks for that) we'll
see whether or not we get an overall rough consensus as those are
considered.
I've an open mind on how that might go, but we're not starting
from scratch here - we do have rfc 5016 and a couple of years
background, so achieving that consensus is quite possible.
Stephen.
Dave Crocker wrote:
Stephen,
Stephen Farrell wrote:
At the meeting last week we said we wanted to try get issue
1399 [1] resolved before Jim sends out a version of SSP to
start WGLC.
You are implying that you still think the document is quite close to
working group last call. Is this correct?
Last Call is issued when there appears to be a stable consensus that the
document is finished.
Is the intent, then, to ignore that fundamental issues that have been
raised about its current form?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html