Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-belyavskiy-rfc5933-bis

[Tim Wicinski <[e-mail]>]

All

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 3:52 AM Ondřej Surý <[e-mail]> wrote:

> [...]



>
> I would also ask the WG to require a implementation report before we send
> this to WGLC.


As chair, this statement -  I can not stress this strongly enough -
determines
even the consideration of a Working Group Last Call.
(I would argue my position on this is stronger than Olafur's).

As chair, I'm very open to having the WG consider and possibly adopt,
technical
work such as this.  I have a *lower* bar for adopting than my co-chairs or
our
Area Director.

As chair, I purposely don't state the intended RFC track during the call
for adoption.
While I disagree with the authors in a percentage of adopted work, I feel
the
WG is very effective at providing guidance, and reasoning.  The chairs
listen
and consider these comments.

As chair, we have a very *high* bar for moving to WGLC.  Implementation
reports
are everything to myself (not speaking for my co-chairs, but I believe they
have
similar feelings).

I had been thinking about the outcome of this call for adoption, and was
going to
have a conversation with my co-chairs and Warren on my thoughts in the next
few
days.  Hearing these thoughts are very useful, and I can't thank you enough.

tim