Hi Rene, I'm sorry if this document is taking longer than usual on its path through the IETF and IESG. It's coming from a WG that should not have really taken on the work (see my DISCUSS) and contains content the IETF is not typically producing, and which still seems to have significant issues. All of this necessitates quite a bit of special handling, which takes time.
I'd like to make it clear that based on a preliminary discussion among the ADs, it seems quite certain that bringing the document to the IESG for ballot in its current form is unlikely to be useful. Pushing for that - without first fully addressing the feedback you have already received - is not going to lead to document approval. Finally, the IESG as whole does not appreciate continued accusations that specific ADs or the IESG as a whole are somehow stonewalling or mishandling your document. Personal attacks are also not acceptable under the IETF guidelines for conduct. The IESG is processing a large number of documents every week. Documents such as this, which require exceptional handling for a number of reasons, take longer, especially if feedback that is given is not being incorporated. Publishing RFCs on the IETF stream is based on established IETF consensus, one aspect of which is that community feedback should be incorporated into documents. Thanks, Lars (on behalf of the IESG)
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ Lwip mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
