Subject: [6lo] GHC plan

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 18:58:53 +0100

It has been pointed out to me that I should probably repeat to the mailing list what I said at ietf89 in London:  there have been lots of good editorial comments on the current GHC draft, and it is worth creating an update before we go ahead and ask for WGLC.  I had planned to do this before my vacation, but other things intervened, so this will have to wait another week or two.  Sorry for the radio silence, and thanks again for all the comments. 

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 10:42:00 +0100

I think the plan is not the WG plan but the draft is WG draft. IMHO,
the GHC plan for having draft-01 with only editorial updates is not
enough. The meeting plan included asking for more reviews. However, we
still have time before next meeting for discussions and reviews.

The draft is still in the adopt version -00 for this WG, which was
adopted at ietf88, I see only two review on the list (not much
discussions), I think the draft needs more proper updates before
meetings to open discussions (before ietf89 meeting Thomas had
discussed but draft did not update to new version for the meeting). I
suggest more discussions per WG draft.

Thanks,

AB

On Saturday, March 22, 2014, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> 6lo mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo

---

From: Ulrich Herberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 08:10:17 -0700

Abdussalam,

see below

On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 2:42 AM, Abdussalam Baryun <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> I think the plan is not the WG plan but the draft is WG draft.

I don't understand what you are saying here.

> IMHO,
> enough.

Fair enough. But without any concrete non-editorial change requests, this
sentence is not constructive. Just saying we need more discussions, without
concrete suggestions what to change is not helpful and will only delay the
process without getting anywhere closer to publication.

> The meeting plan included asking for more reviews. However, we

I do encourage everyone on the mailing list to review this draft (as well
as all other WG drafts). Note that the GHC draft has been around for quite
a while and presented multiple times in the 6lowpan WG.

Best regards
Ulrich

> > It has been pointed out to me that I should probably repeat to the
> mailing list what I said at ietf89 in London:  there have been lots of good
> editorial comments on the current GHC draft, and it is worth creating an
> update before we go ahead and ask for WGLC.  I had planned to do this
> before my vacation, but other things intervened, so this will have to wait
> another week or two.  Sorry for the radio silence, and thanks again for all
> the comments.
> >
> > Grüße, Carsten