Re: [rmcat] confirmation of WG adoption calls

[Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[e-mail]>]

Hi Lars,

I thought the group was in consensus that the evaluation draft should go through more (at least one) iterations before it is adopted as WG doc :-). This message was conveyed to Varun and he provably is working on an update (with all the overwhelming comments he got on and off the mic.). I would personally like to see the next version of the draft before it is adopted as WG item as the current version  creates confusions rather clarifications. This is a document where we should not really rush.

BR
Zahed

ANM ZAHEDUZZAMAN SARKER 
Ericsson AB
Multimedia Technologies
Laboratoriegränd 11
97128 Luleå, Sweden
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
SMS/MMS [phone]
[e-mail]
www.ericsson.com



> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
> Of Eggert, Lars
> Sent: den 5 april 2013 09:31
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; draft-jesup-rmcat-
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [rmcat] confirmation of WG adoption calls
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Mirja and me have gotten zero feedback on the two points below.
> Therefore:
> 
> On Mar 11, 2013, at 21:03, "Eggert, Lars" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > (1) draft-jesup-rmcat-reqs as a starting point for our cc-requirements work
> item
> > (2) draft-singh-rmcat-cc-eval as a starting point for our eval-criteria work
> item
> >
> > For (1), the room as 20-0 in favor of adoption. I'd call this strong consensus
> and would as the author to submit the next revision as a WG item. Please
> speak up if you disagree with this notion.
> 
> Randell, please submit the next revision (which should incorporate the
> feedback from Orlando) as a WG item named draft-ietf-rmcat-cc-
> requirements-00 (bringing the name in line with the milestone tags we use
> on http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/rmcat/trac/wiki/RearrangedCharter for
> easier tracking).
> 
> > For (2), the room was more split, with about 10-5 in favor. I'd like to
> understand the reservations that kept some people from supporting the
> consensus call. Please send a brief email to the list (or to the chairs
> personally) and let us know if you have fundamental objections or would
> simply see the document develop a bit further before being able to support
> it, or any other concerns you may have.
> >
> > We don't have any alternative documents targeting our eval-criteria
> milestone, and I'm thus at the moment leaning to call a weak consensus for
> adoption. But I want to make sure we understand the concerns first.
> 
> Not having seen any feedback, I'm calling rough consensus to adopt (2)
> towards our eval-criteria milestone as well. The consensus is quite a bit
> rougher than for (1), but I believe the document is good enough as a starting
> point, and Varun is actively working with the WG in order to develop the
> draft. And, we don't seem to have any other document attempting to target
> this milestone.
> 
> So, Varun, please submit the next revision as draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-
> 00, again bringing the name in line with the milestone tags we use on the
> wiki. Please incorporate the discussions of the design team as well (and
> continue discussing!)
> 
> Thanks,
> Lars