[Raw] Reconfirming WG consensus for draft-ietf-raw-ldacs

["Schooler, Eve M" <[e-mail]>]

Dear WG,

In the IESG review of this document, Alvaro Retana raised a DISCUSS expressing concern about the strength of consensus behind it:

> As mentioned by the Shepherd, this document is a "description by 
> matter specialists of an externally-defined link-layer".  The 
> technology described is an overview of work done elsewhere.  There was 
> no discussion of the content on the mailing list, which shows only two 
> messages from non-authors: one asking for more information; the reply 
> was a pointer to the LDACS external specification [1] -- the other was 
> the single WGLC reply from the document shepherd [2].

In addition, although the incremental changes to the LDACS document have been presented at almost every official IETF RAW WG meeting since IETF 107, it did not raise much discussion at the "mic". 

To help us address these concerns, we would like WG participants to reply to this thread with your explicit support (or opposition!) for publication. Since the document is a “description by matter specialists of an externally-defined link-layer” it’s worth thinking about what we are asking for consensus on. The specific questions are,

1. Is this an accurate description of the LDACS architecture?
2. Is it useful for the IETF to publish it?

Please keep those questions in mind and address them in your reply (although you can provide any other comments and questions too, of course). It would also be helpful if you indicate in your reply what kind of review of the document you did.

Your answer to question 1 could be based on anything between “I trust the authors to have done this correctly, and it sounds right” to “I’ve reviewed the underlying LDACS documents as well and have verified the document is right”. Probably a lot of people will fall in the former camp, and that’s OK. But, if any WG participant wants access to the LDACS documents cited in the references and can’t access them, the authors have indicated willingness to work with you to provide access. Please reach out directly to the authors and chairs if you need help.

Thanks for your input.

Best regards,
Rick & Eve