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(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf