Hi Roman, > ** Abstract. > This document discloses the algorithm that we have developed in order > to make it easier for other developers to implement similar > algorithms. We do not claim that our algorithm is optimal, rather it > is a pragmatic effort and we expect that further research and > refinement can improve the results. > > We are not currently proposing that this algorithm be standardized, > nor that the working group use this as a basis for further > standardization work, however we have no objections if the working > group chooses to do so. > > -- Who is the “we” in this text? It reads like it would be the authors, but > this is an adopted WG document?
It is the authors. I will replace “we” with “the authors” in these paragraphs. > ** Section 1.1.2. I applaud the inclusion of success criteria. Who is this > section for? A future WG can ignore all of this guidance and attempt to > standardize the materials. Success criteria for an experiment is different > than the criteria to publish work as a PS. This section was required by the WG as a competitive deterrent. As you well know, WG members are free to make arbitrary objections and requests, creating hurdles for authors if the WG does not object. This was simply one such hurdle. The authors have no expectations that this would advance to PS if the experiment is deemed successful. Regards, Tony _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
