Re: [Seamoby] Section 5.2 in CT Requirements

Pat,

> I know that there was concern by the IESG on this very topic, and the idea of
> the above text was a compromise with the area director, who was going to
> initiate a discussion with the transport directorate. Unfortunately, this
> never occured, and the text remained. Allison had suggested that we continue
> with the non-transport discussions and that this topic will resurface again
> in the future.
>

I don't think Allison intended that the document go to the IESG with this text
in it, though I have not had an opportunity to speak with her about it. But
ultimately
she is not responsible for the working group documents, that is the
working group's responsiblity. We should have pulled that text out before we
sent it to the IESG, and, ideally, had something to replace it. If, at that
point, the IESG had a technical disagreement with our proposed requirement,
then we would have heard back.

> The question is whether this can occur after the document can be published
> (perhaps without the section).
>

I think we at least have to propose a requirement, which is what the text I sent
was intended to do.

            jak

_______________________________________________
Seamoby mailing list
Seamoby@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby