[Forces-protocol] Re: 01-5

Hi Avri,

On Sun, 2004-10-24 at 12:37, avri@psg.com wrote:

> 
> As i said in an earlier note, i can always put things back in.  I don't 
> actually remove these things on the first pass, I just comment them out 
> in the xml files.  and if someone complains, I can uncomment them.  
> Basically I am trying to find the rough consensus point - though I 
> freely acknowledge that I can only recommend where i think that point 
> is. At this point any issue that can't be resolved needs to go to the 
> WG and the chairs for determination of the rough consensus.  Frankly I 
> thought we had rough consensus on the issue.  It certainly seemed to be 
> reflected in the decisions being made on the text.
> 

Just keep up the good work.
I think people may be confused if you are actually following the
discussion (since you are unusually quiet) hence the comments you may
have seen. 
But now that we know you are - you should be allowed to exercise your
editorial powers on things IMO. What you are doing
in keeping the old text around when the person who made the changes
to that section hasnt responded is a very good idea.

> At this point there are only 20 hours left before I need to submit the 
> draft.  I have been reading the list rather faithfully and trying to 
> understand which issues have been resolved and which have not.  I 
> honestly thought this debate had been resolved.  If I make a mistake, 
> and i acknowledge that i do make mistakes i will roll back the text. 
> And since this is not the final version, anything can be changed - 
> especially if/when we start to get some WG community feedback.
> 

The path issue has been resolved; i think we may be just talking past
each other. The issue thats still open is the data packing.

> Note: if, my editorial judgments are disturbing, and I try to make as 
> few as I think this group can bear, I will pass on the document to 
> someone else. Having said that, I think it is time to start making 
> decisions and bringing them to the WG who are, in point of fact, the 
> owners of the draft.
> 

The WG should see the draft after we are done i think. I wouldnt say we
are.

> Anyhow, over the next 20 hours I will try to remain available as much 
> as possible to get a draft out that meets this team's rough consensus.
> 

Great.

> Incidentally I have now uncommented that note - i.e. it will show up 
> again in 01-7 unless it gets resolved between then and now.
> 
> Another point.  I have not managed to do the work necessary to activate 
> the issues database, but will try to do so before the IETF.  In my 
> opinion, it is time to start moving these disagreements from the text 
> into an issues database in an effort to drive this document to 
> completion - our milestone is March 05 - only 5 months away at this 
> point.
> 

This would be nice.

> also, how many of the team will be at the meeting.  We really should 
> have a face to face session to resolve as many issues as possible.  I 
> will be arriving in DC Saturday morning (for the HIP RG  seminar) and 
> will remain in town until the following Saturday morning
> 

I plan to be there.

cheers,
jamal

> a.
> 

_______________________________________________
Forces-protocol mailing list
Forces-protocol@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces-protocol