Re: [proto-team] Re: PROTO - proceeding on adding PROTO shepherds to the tracker

Parallelism could be hard for humans to keep track of.  I think there  
are other options but I'm starting to believe that writing tools  
requirements before we know what we're going to do is premature :)

I know I have the token on early review, and what I'm doing about  
that right now is talking to Ross and Bill about what kind of  
experiment they might run in Routing, and considering running an  
experiment myself.

lisa

On May 17, 2006, at 1:58 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> Bill Fenner wrote:
>> Here's a question:
>> Will the WG want to use the "in WG" states when the
>> IESG has said "Revise this document to address these
>> concerns" (e.g., AD Evaluation/Revised ID Needed, or
>> IESG Evaluation/Revised ID Needed)?
>> I think the answer could be "Yes", meaning that this is
>> actually a parallel state machine, not an extension to
>> the existing state machine.
>
> bzzzz... one of those state machines with multiple red dots
> running round them. This could get interesting, depending
> on how the tracker's basic model is coded. But I think
> the requirement is fairly clear - parallelism is needed
> at several points in the life cycle.
>
>     Brian
>

_______________________________________________
proto-team mailing list
proto-team@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/proto-team