Re: Adoption request: draft-li-arch-sat

[Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>]

Replying because you directred the question to me…but these are questions
for the chairs.

On April 2, 2024 at 5:50:57 PM, Hesham ElBakoury ([e-mail])
wrote:

Hi Alvaro,
My understanding from RF8789 is that it requires WG last call but not rough
consensus. I am also not clear on how you measure rough consensus?

I think the *sat-int* email list has satellites experts who can provide
their feedback. If this not the case, and if RTGWG does not have satellites
experts, then how we can make well-informed decision about this draft
without asking for help from external reviewers who can join the RTGWG if
needed.

Thanks
Hesham



On Tue, Apr 2, 2024, 1:21 PM Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On April 2, 2024 at 3:10:09 PM, Hesham ElBakoury wrote:
>
> Hesham:
>
> Hi!
>
> > Can we get external reviewers to look at this draft?
>
> That's a question for the chairs.
>
> Given that all IETF stream documents require consensus (rfc8789), I
> don't know how an external review figures into that.
>
>
> Alvaro.
>
>
> > On Tue, Apr 2, 2024, 7:49 AM Alvaro Retana wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > I have the same concerns as Stewart.
> > >
> > > We don’t have the experience or expertise to review the document,
> > > including the assumptions. This topic is interesting, but without the
> > > ability to review it properly, I don’t think this draft (or any other
> > > related work) should be adopted.
> > >
> > > Alvaro.
>