Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 Failover -- LAST CHANCE

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

Kim specifically stated that it had had enough detailed review at this
point.

On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 2:25 PM, 神明達哉 <[e-mail]> wrote:

> At Sat, 3 Sep 2016 09:21:38 -0400,
> Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> > Jinmei-san, the question is, is it better to publish something that's
> > basically good but has a few non-blocking issues, or to not publish it at
> > all?   I too would like to see the document get more review and maybe a
> > couple of interoperating implementations, but if we have to wait for the
> > bis document for that, I'm okay with it.
>
> This is the conclusion of the previous WGLC (including the original
> call text)):
> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/current/msg17438.html
>
> The last call states:
>
> >> We will need several serious reviews of this document for it to
> >> pass WGLC.
>
> and the conclusion was:
>
> >> But sadly (as I need to make the call as Tomek is a co-author), I
> >> don’t think we’re ready to advance this document. We will try again
> >> and hopefully get some more participation.
>
> I interpreted it as it didn't pass because there were not sufficient
> number of "serious reviews".  If my interpretation is correct and the
> situation hasn't changed since then (I wasn't in Berlin even remotely
> and the meeting minutes and the retried last call text are not very
> clear on this), I would expect this latest last call is also seeking
> "several serious reviews".  So it looked awkward to me that the wg now
> seems to ask people for stating a one-line, lightweight "support or
> not support" feedback.
>
> According to your above comment, perhaps the sense of the bar to
> advance it has been revised from "several more serious reviews" to a
> few more one-line "yes" responses through a discussion that I didn't
> participate in.  If so, I have no problem with that, although it would
> have been nicer if that had been clarified in the revised last call
> text.  If the bar hasn't changed, I personally think we are having a
> due diligence issue.
>
> In any case, I don't intend to be a blocker for this document
> especially when I can't be more productive by providing a "serious
> review" myself.  So I'll shut up on this with this message.
>
> --
> JINMEI, Tatuya
>