Re: Spin bit discussion - where we're at

[Marcus Ihlar <[e-mail]>]

Hi,
Just chipping in to say that I’m happy to work with Brian on this draft.

/Marcus

> On 22 Nov 2017, at 22:51, Eggert, Lars <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On 2017-11-22, at 15:22, Roni Even <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> I think the decision to not discuss it at the interim is based on the observation
>>> that the registered attendees at the interim are probably not representative
>>> of the overall WG constituency - we want to give all sides an ability to
>>> participate equally in the discussion.
>> [Roni Even] This is why we have remote participants at IETF meetings !!!!!!!!
>> You do not have to be in person to discuss!!!!
> 
> the IETF (vie MeetEcho) provides remote participation at the main meetings. At the interims, it's Mark. It seems to have mostly worked OK for passive participation during two out of the last three interims, but we haven't tried to hold a discussion with many active remote participants.
> 
>>> I think what Mark tried to express is that the discussion on the Spin Bit can be
>>> mostly decoupled from the (large amount of) work remaining on the base
>>> spec. That is, we don't have to conclude the Spin Bit discussion significantly
>>> prior to the conclusion of the overall work (although we can), since it should
>>> be easy to merge at the later stages before handing things to the IESG.
>> [Roni Even] delaying the discussion may prevent the acceptance.  If people will put effort at submitting text then the chairs should allow for discussion and not delay the work. 
> 
> I disagree with this characterization.
> 
> What I said above in the paragraph you quote is that we do not *have to* conclude the Spin Bit discussion urgently *although we can*. Specifically, we can begin (and conclude) the discussion once there is an actual proposal that addresses what Mark's original email outlined.
> 
> Lars