Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Andrew Alston's Discuss on draft-ietf-elegy-rfc8989bis-04: (with DISCUSS)

[Martin Duke <[e-mail]>]

I just removed the reference, since it's not important

https://github.co/ietf-wg-elegy/rfc8989bis/pull/22

On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 6:47 AM Barry Leiba <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I very strongly disagree with you, Andrew: the remote-fee document is
> not being used normatively here; it's only framing things.  This
> document is purely about eligibility, and the remote-fee issue does
> not have to be either settled or understood in order to understand the
> eligibility text.
>
> Barry (document shepherd)
>
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 3:50 AM Andrew Alston via Datatracker
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Andrew Alston has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-elegy-rfc8989bis-04: Discuss
> >
> > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> > introductory paragraph, however.)
> >
> >
> > Please refer to
> https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
> > for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> >
> >
> > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-elegy-rfc8989bis/
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > DISCUSS:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Thanks for the solid work on this document.
> >
> > One comment that I'd like to discuss, I believe the reference to
> > ietf-shmoo-remote-fee should be normative, since this document makes
> reference
> > to a long term commitment to free remote participation, and to my
> knowledge
> > absent the shmoo-remote-fee document that isn't a commitment that is
> codified.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>