Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Dear Mr Decraene,
At 12:58 AM 28-02-2020, [e-mail] wrote:
>1) People have the right to express, including to hum sometimes, but 
>decision is not based on the number of "+1".
>Do you have the impression that the decision is based on some voting 
>scheme? (Assuming the decision was made in the first place...) If 
>so, could you please help me see what makes you feel so?

My comment about the above was a response to the comment at 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/nIAqSeZJKq64QHbyy_ZrNqk_CXg/

>2) As regards to the timing, the duration of the call for comments 
>has indeed elapsed.
>If your comment is related to the actual work, as you may have seen, 
>there has been a high number of comments on the list so there is 
>work to be done on the resolution of the comments. The more 
>comments, the more time. The harder the comment, the more time. I 
>can't provide or force people to provide an ETA for the resolutions 
>of comments. I think that working on improving the document is more 
>important than a few weeks delay. BTW, I'm not aware of specific 
>timing requirement to advance a document to RFC. Closest things I've 
>seen is "SOON" [1] and "timely" [2]

I enquired about the working group process.  I don't see anything in 
the reference to RFC 2026 about Working Group procedures.  The second 
reference is to an Internet-Draft about the definition of the word 
"timely".  As far as I am aware, that Internet-Draft is not part of 
IETF Working Group procedures.

>If your question is related to formal state, is your point that the 
>datatracker state should have been moved from " In WG Last Call " to 
>" Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC ". If so, I tend to 
>agree with you. Could/will also be " Doc Shepherd Follow-up 
>Underway" at some point.
>
>That been said, as I've said on the list, the end of the WG LC is 
>not the end of the ability for the WG to make technical comments on 
>the list. [3]. One example may be the latest comment from Chris Bowers.
>
>3) Your specific questions been answered, it's not crystal clear to 
>me what are you trying to achieve with your email. Do you believe 
>the document should advance faster, slower, not advance? That your 
>comments were not adequately answered? (although I'm not seen any 
>comment from your side on the mailing list). Please help me 
>understand your root concern.

My question was about when the the Working Group Last Call ends.  I 
don't view it as appropriate to determine whether the document should 
advance faster or slower as I am not responsible to make such a determination.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy