Dear Sabine: Thank you for your note. I think it is very important that
the WG participates in the reviews to finish this piece of work. Absent
such robust participation, I am at a loss on how we can progress this work.
I will really like an identified reviewer (if not Luis) to let the chairs
know so we can help facilitate the work.
Thank you.
On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 10:28 AM Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia -
FR/Paris-Saclay) wrote:
> Hi Vijay,
>
>
>
> Thank you for the reminder. A new version 13 is under edition and
> addresses the review of Danny. It will also address the second review
> comments once they will be available.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sabine
>
>
>
> *From:* alto *On Behalf Of *Vijay Gurbani
> *Sent:* Friday, September 25, 2020 4:59 PM
> *To:* IETF ALTO
> *Subject:* [alto] Status of alto-unified-props: Not encouraging?
>
>
>
> All: The unified-properties draft is now done with its WGLC. (In fact, it
> is well past done. WGLC ended on Aug 7, 2020 [0].)
>
> I will be shepherding this draft, however, I see a problem with it.
>
> I note that the draft only received one WGLC review , and this was from
> Danny [1]. My understanding from list discussion [2] is that Luis was to
> provide a second review, but I do not see the second WGLC review. If I am
> mistaken, please let me know and I will apologize profusely. In the event
> that there has not been a second WGLC review ...
>
> If a second review is provided, please be advised that the draft will not
> move ahead. Since other drafts have a dependency on this draft, a lack of
> movement of unified-properties implies that progress of dependent drafts
> stops as well.
>
> I will kindly request Luis to provide a WGLC no later than Oct 09, two
> weeks from now. If other list members want to review the draft in addition
> to Luis, please let Jan and me know. We do need one more quality review
> for unified-properties to move ahead. If a second review is not provided
> by Oct 09, the chairs will take this as advice that the work is no longer
> important to the WG, and the WG will have to decide on the fate of
> dependent documents.
>
> @Authors: It looks like Danny's comments have not yet been incorporated in
> a new revision. Danny reviewed version -12 and that appears to be the
> latest version in the IETF archives. Please notify the WG on your plans to
> update the draft based on Danny's comments.
>
> [0]
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/jhPmZR4UKpiIwA_tC2s9b9YZ8Mk/
> [1]
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/YVaCXE7IgXOqWpq-17GV-gbiYwo/
> [2]
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/b0xwfQUVnYp_o58tJO32MF9p42I/
>
> Thanks,
>
> - vijay
>
___
alto mailing list
alto@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
