Re: [gaia] Comments on: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments

["Jose Saldana" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Lars, Mat and Arjuna (and all),

I have been reading all the e-mails (a lot of them BTW, which means that
this draft has raised some interest).

After a lot of work and discussion, and after the Research Group Last Call
and the IRSG Review, I thought we had converged to something useful, but it
seems the document can still be improved.

The question is that we have to find a balance between these two extremes:
"the perfect document that everyone likes and will never be finished" and
"an imperfect document that can at least be published".

This is my two-step proposal:

1) We (the authors, and myself as the editor) will build a new version (05)
of the document including the suggestions of the last week, but without
substantially modifying it. I think we can do it this week (we have already
included a number of small improvements). We may ask for feedback from the
people who have suggested some changes.

2) People read it slowly, and next week we can make this decision in the
list:
	a) We move forward with the document version 05 as it is (perhaps
with some minor improvements).
	b) Re-open the discussion and include more substantial changes,
which may require a new Last Call and IRSG Review.


Do you think this can be a good approach?

Jose

> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: gaia [mailto:[e-mail]] En nombre de Eggert, Lars
> Enviado el: martes, 12 de abril de 2016 7:22
> Para: Jose Saldana <[e-mail]>
> CC: gaia <[e-mail]>; Mitar <[e-mail]>
> Asunto: Re: [gaia] Comments on:
draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On 2016-04-11, at 16:46, Jose Saldana <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > The main question now is this: this work started a long time ago (the
> > first version is from Dec 20, 2014), and after a lot of work and
> > discussion, the draft has already passed the Working Group Last Call,
and the
> IRSG review.
> 
> you of course mean research group last call :-)
> 
> > So at this stage we cannot include modifications substantially modifying
it.
> 
> Well, you can modify it, but it would imply re-running the last call and
IRSG Review.
> It is a judgment call for the RG chairs whether they believe that a major
revision
> would result in a document that is so much better that it is worth
incurring the extra
> delay until publication.
> 
> Lars