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 and avoided the US
Thanksgiving holiday.
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
(fortunately, the work you are doing can be replaced with other solutions
if does not map to our commercial needs).
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.....)
Don
On 2/16/12 10:02 AM, "Carsten Bormann" <cabo(_at_)tzi(_dot_)org> wrote:
Hi Don,
thanks for the feedback.
link-format has been essentially stable for the better part of a year now
(as the result of dispatching of the comments on the first WGLC in -03,
IIRC). It has been used in a number of informal interop events, and the
feedback always was that it did its job and there were few, if any,
problems.
Yes, there have been many minor revisions since, mostly on the editorial
front.
There is a difference between a spec implementers close to the WG process
can use and the one you want in the permanent record for everybody to use.
We also needed to get the ABNF right to cover some fringe cases.
When these small fixes were completed in response to the results of the
second WGLC, I had briefly planned to do a third WGLC, but then I didn't
really see a reason any more to do so. (BTW, I'm not aware of a concept
of "final WGLC", and I have never qualified a WGLC as such. The "L" in
WGLC already means "last", as in final.)
As a general observation on the IETF WG process: the increase of the
number on the document does not mean there is substantial change. In
particular during what I'm referring to as the "ID-nits phase" when a
document is getting dressed up for going forward, it may take a couple of
small editorial rounds to get all the various classes of things crossed
and dotted.
Please do avail yourself of the tools pages to review the diffs to see
whether there still is substantial change or just Brownian motion. On a
more general note, WGLC is not the only time WG members need to look at a
document.
Putting WGLCs on top of distracting events like IETF meetings or
important holidays is something most WG chairs actively try to avoid. I
already put in an allowance for the November IETF in the second WGLC, and
I'm sorry if I forgot about adding more allowance for US Thanksgiving
Day. (There has been ample time since to submit any late feedback.)
All that said, we're in luck and have an IETF last call that follows the
WG consensus process in the procedures, and this is a great opportunity
for additional input.
I'm certainly looking forward to yours.
Grüße, Carsten
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf