Dear S Moonesamy, Speaking as an individual contributor, please find below a few comments
1) The below email was a private email between a set of persons. Forwarding it, to a public list without permission is frown upon by the Netiquette (if not savoir-vivre, to begin with) "If the message was a personal message to you and you are re-posting to a group, you should ask permission first." https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1855 2) While forwarding the email, you have edited it, removing you own original email and the context. Context that nobody on the mailing list can be aware of. "If you are forwarding or re-posting a message you've received, do not change the wording." https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1855 I would suggest that next time you want the communication to be public, you start it on the public mailing list, so that the whole WG is aware of the whole thread. (Note that this would not change the text in my email) --Bruno > > -----Original Message----- > From: S Moonesamy [mailto:sm+i...@elandsys.com] > Sent: Friday, February 28, 2020 10:36 AM > To: DECRAENE Bruno TGI/OLN; spring@ietf.org > Cc: Warren Kumari; Martin Vigoureux; Rob Shakir > Subject: RE: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - > draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming > > Dear Mr Decraene, > At 12:58 AM 28-02-2020, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: > >1) People have the right to express, including to hum sometimes, but > >decision is not based on the number of "+1". > >Do you have the impression that the decision is based on some voting > >scheme? (Assuming the decision was made in the first place...) If > >so, could you please help me see what makes you feel so? > > My comment about the above was a response to the comment at > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/nIAqSeZJKq64QHbyy_ZrNqk_CXg/ > > >2) As regards to the timing, the duration of the call for comments > >has indeed elapsed. > >If your comment is related to the actual work, as you may have seen, > >there has been a high number of comments on the list so there is > >work to be done on the resolution of the comments. The more > >comments, the more time. The harder the comment, the more time. I > >can't provide or force people to provide an ETA for the resolutions > >of comments. I think that working on improving the document is more > >important than a few weeks delay. BTW, I'm not aware of specific > >timing requirement to advance a document to RFC. Closest things I've > >seen is "SOON" [1] and "timely" [2] > > I enquired about the working group process. I don't see anything in > the reference to RFC 2026 about Working Group procedures. The second > reference is to an Internet-Draft about the definition of the word > "timely". As far as I am aware, that Internet-Draft is not part of > IETF Working Group procedures. > > >If your question is related to formal state, is your point that the > >datatracker state should have been moved from " In WG Last Call " to > >" Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC ". If so, I tend to > >agree with you. Could/will also be " Doc Shepherd Follow-up > >Underway" at some point. > > > >That been said, as I've said on the list, the end of the WG LC is > >not the end of the ability for the WG to make technical comments on > >the list. [3]. One example may be the latest comment from Chris Bowers. > > > >3) Your specific questions been answered, it's not crystal clear to > >me what are you trying to achieve with your email. Do you believe > >the document should advance faster, slower, not advance? That your > >comments were not adequately answered? (although I'm not seen any > >comment from your side on the mailing list). Please help me > >understand your root concern. > > My question was about when the the Working Group Last Call ends. I > don't view it as appropriate to determine whether the document should > advance faster or slower as I am not responsible to make such a determination. > > Regards, > S. Moonesamy > _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
