Re: [Anima] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane-19: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Email last week may have been off-list, so let me repeat for the WG:
Working on -23 to address your review, Eric. At a conference mon-wed,
so a bit slower finishing it. There are still outstanding points
from Ben, he is on PTO  this week, but hopefully we can finish those
next week.

Cheers
    Toerles

On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 07:30:34AM +0000, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote:
> Toerless
> 
> Thank you for this updated revision. 
> 
> About the next steps:
> 
> ???On 04/02/2020, 05:49, "iesg on behalf of Toerless Eckert" <iesg-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of tte@cs.fau.de> wrote:
> 
>     Hi Benjamin
> 
>     -----%<------%<-----
>    
>     > That said, my one Discuss point is not the end of the road for things;
>     > since as I understand it the WG has already considered the topic
>     > extensively, it may be time to check with the responsible AD about bringing
>     > the document back on a telechat with, e.g., an alternate ballot procedure
>     > ("single-discuss" or the full-on "alternate procedure" from
>     > https://ietf.org/standards/process/iesg-ballots/).  I don't remember
>     > hearing much from any other IESG members on this topic, at least as of yet.
>     
>     Not quite sure i follow everything you say: My understanding is that
>     E'ric is now the responsible AD for the document, so we authors will simply
>     follow his guidance for any further necessary AD review .
>     
>     Given how we already had a lot of exhaustive and good reviews and resulting
>     fixes, i hope the poor ADs will not be forced to repeat potentialy unnecessary
>     work on such a big document given how the fixes are all well documented and
>     also summarized now in the changelog (summarizing IESG review up to -21 and explaining
>     that there are no fundamental changes just a good amount of detail fixes
>     and textual improvements).  But this is my first RFC as big as this,
>     so i have no prior good experience with the process in a case like this.
> 
> As I am the 'poor' responsible AD now, with the amount of changes in the document, an IETF-wide Last Call is required to ensure a swift process. As soon as I am confident that -22 is 'good to go', then I will start this Last Call, then IESG evaluation, ballot and telechat and hopefully the document will be approved before the new IESG.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -éric
> 
> ----%<-----------%<----------
>     
>     
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Anima mailing list
> Anima@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima

-- 
---
tte@cs.fau.de