Hi Hooman, To respond to your comment, we usually follow the list below: 1- Gauge interest on the mailing list about an I-D, 2- Gauge interest when the I-D is presented to the WG, 3- If enough of 1 and 2, do a 1st poll in the room during WG meetings, 4- If enough of 3, add the I-D to the adoption queue.
Without face-to-face meeting, we sometimes skip 3. Considering its depth, we often revise the order in the adoption queue with respect to consensus and document maturity (consider thanking Dhruv for that). As a result, your effort should focus on progressing technical discussions rather than process requests: I believe the discussion in progress will end up in improving your I-D, which will be valuable whatever the further steps. Contrary to what I've read, please note PCE-CC isn't a prerequisite and there's no such statement like "the working group is only dictating PCECC and is not open to any other option but PCECC for the purpose of programming the PCC and multicast". Thanks, Julien On 10/03/2021 04:39, Bidgoli, Hooman (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) wrote: > HB> Dear chairs I am not sure if I understand the criteria of how > drafts move from “Individual documents that authors consider ready for > WG adoption” to “WG Adoptoin call queue”. I am guessing it is chairs > consent that moves the draft between the 2 queues, not the adaptation > request?
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
