This is less a substantive comment but one more on process??..
Here is the history of WGLC:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/core/current/msg02427.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/core/current/msg01414.html
Here is the history:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-core-link-format/history/
A couple of points:
1) I work in a commercial group (ZigBee Alliance) using IETF standards for
commercial deployment. We have several work groups interested in CoAP but
were waiting for a stable version to determine whether it was usable or not
for their application (things like home automation, commercial automation).
We had assumed that since the original WGLC (rev 02) and since there were
multiple iterations on the document (see the history) that the document was
not final.
2) The second WGLC was only 1 week in duration and occurred over the US
Thanksgiving holiday. I completely missed that. Even so, there were 3 more
revisions after that so not sure it was obvious that this was actually the
final WGLC for the document.
I mention the above since I think it would be useful to actually have a full
1 month last call on this document. I think there were several of us that
were surprised by the referral of the document to the IESG and who were
planning to do a final review at WGLC (which apparently we missed?.).
Also, is it normal to have so many revisions after WGLC? Having WGLC in
Jan. 2011 on rev 02 and then the version referred to IESG as rev 12 a year
later seems strange.
Thanks for your consideration,
Don Sturek
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf