Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 Failover -- LAST CHANCE

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.

On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 4:23 PM, 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> wrote:

> At Fri, 2 Sep 2016 15:23:13 -0400,
> Kim Kinnear <kkinnear@cisco.com> wrote:
>
> > We have some detailed technical reviews.  What we *really* need now
> > are people to just read it and say:
> >
> >   "I think this draft should move forward".
> >
> > That's all you have to do.  Any review would be nice, but we really
> > just need people to read it and send in email that says "move this
> > forward".
>
> I feel sorry that I simply couldn't find time to read this big
> document and provide useful feedback, but I also feel nervous by
> seeing this action...it's hard to believe that if someone reads this
> size of complicated technical document and can just say "it should
> move forward".  Even after getting reviews and revised, it's quite
> likely for every new reader to find at least one or a few non-trivial
> issues.  So, if the only response to the call is just "move forward",
> I wonder if it's really a careful read.  And, now, if we move forward
> just by counting a certain number of 'yes', does that mean something?
> If we think we've already got sufficient level of technical reviews,
> isn't it itself enough to move forward (to which I wouldn't be
> opposed)?  If not, counting more simple "move forward" responses just
> as a prerequisite for moving forward doesn't seem to be a good way to
> move forward.
>
> Just my two cents.  Again, I'm sorry I cannot be more productive...
>
> --
> JINMEI, Tatuya
>
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>