Re: [tcpm] New Version Notification for draft-touch-tcpm-tcp-edo-01.txt

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

> On May 2, 2014, at 1:27 PM, Yoshifumi Nishida <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Joe,
> 
>> On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 8:02 AM, Joe Touch <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On 5/2/2014 7:45 AM, Wesley Eddy wrote:
>>>> On 5/2/2014 7:18 AM, Pasi Sarolahti wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On 26 Apr 2014, at 01:19, Joe Touch <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> I'd like to ask the chairs if we can consider a call to make this a
>>>>> WG doc?
>>>>> 
>>>>> (given the work of the group is supposed to happen on the list -
>>>>> and I don't attend meetings in person these days -this doesn't seem
>>>>> like it needs to wait for a meeting to proceed)
>>>> 
>>>> We should discuss the possible WG adoption on the list before the
>>>> meeting, and some people have already voiced their support. But there
>>>> is value in discussing this in the f2f meeting, too, before
>>>> confirming WG adoption (hum). Perhaps Wes can present this, or as the
>>>> last resort the presentation could be proxied by chairs. I don't see
>>>> any reason to hurry this so that we couldn't wait until the Toronto
>>>> meeting.
>>> 
>>> That would be fine with me.  IMO, it would be nice to know what
>>> the perceived mailing list consensus is, and use the meeting to
>>> confirm that.  It's only a couple months away.
>> 
>> I'm not in a rush, but as a point of order:
>> 
>>         - work happens on the mailing list, NOT at the meetings
>> 
>>         - decisions at the meeting are confirmed on the list,
>>         not the other way around
>> 
>> That's why I don't see why we need to wait for the meeting. Meetings are places where we typically hash out issues that arise on the list, e.g.:
>>         a. post to the list
>>         b. need for interactive clarification arises
>>         c. meeting supports interactive clarification
>>         d. decision happens back on the list
> 
> I personally would like to put a line between c. and d. like:
>            c1. gauge consensus from both the list and the meetings
> I think having two ways to gauge consensus is good thing.

It's good but should not be required.  Meeting attendance isn't required and officially all IETF business is supposed to happen on the list. So holding up work to involve meetings should not ever happen IMO. 

Joe


> --
> Yoshi
>