On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 11:49:01AM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> writes: > > > Lada, > > > > there won't be any decision as long as there is not a concrete > > actionable proposal to be discussed. Such a proposal does not have to > > be 'complete rewrite' but it needs to be a detailed list of what would > > have to change so that it is possible to assess such a proposal. > > This is still quite some work, so I'd first like to see an elementary > consensus that it is a good thing to do now.
I think the WG needs to see a half way complete list of changes that this implies in order to form an opinion, something like 'section X needs to be rewritten', 'section X needs to be split into A and B', 'section X does not require any changes' etc. Unless we have an outline of how much work this is, we simply do not know what we are talking about. > Clearly it would mean further delay for 6020bis and all other documents > that depend on it. And frankly - I need to show my employer that at > least some of my IETF work ever gets finished. I agree. If such a reorganization costs say more of four additional weeks, I have a hard time to like it. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
