Subject: [core] draft-ietf-core-groupcomm status, post-telechat

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 13:29:43 -0400

The "groupcomm" document still has several DISCUSS points on it, and
is in Revised I-D Needed status after today's telechat.  It's clear
that the consensus of the IESG is to re-target the document at
Experimental status.  The authors should make that change in the next
version, in addition to resolving the DISCUSS issues and addressing
the other IESG comments.

The document shepherd should pleas track this, prod as necessary, and
make sure things get resolved and dealt with.  Please let me know when
the document is ready for approval.  Please also confirm that the
working group accepts the IESG's decision to go with Experimental, and
if the working group doesn't, please explain why.

Barry

---

From: "Rahman, Akbar" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 16:35:44 -0400

Hi Barry,

Thank you for the update.

We will aim to have an update of the draft by the end of next week that addresses all the DISCUSS points (as well as other comments). I'm assuming that is acceptable instead of multiple parallel email exchanges trying to resolve the comments by email.

Please write back and tell us if you agree with this approach or not.

Akbar & Esko

-----Original Message-----
From: Barry Leiba [[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 01:29 PM Eastern Standard Time
To: core WG
Subject: [core] draft-ietf-core-groupcomm status, post-telechat

Barry

_______________________________________________
core mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 17:31:32 -0400

That's fine, but please do engage with the ADs whose comments you're
addressing, to make sure that they know you're working on it, and, if
necessary, that they agree with your plan.

Barry

On Thursday, August 21, 2014, Rahman, Akbar <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> We will aim to have an update of the draft by the end of next week that
> addresses all the DISCUSS points (as well as other comments). I'm assuming
> that is acceptable instead of multiple parallel email exchanges trying to
> resolve the comments by email.
>
> *From: *Barry Leiba [[email-masked]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[email-masked]');>]
> *Sent: *Thursday, August 21, 2014 01:29 PM Eastern Standard Time
> *To: *core WG
> *Subject: *[core] draft-ietf-core-groupcomm status, post-telechat
>
> [email-masked] <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[email-masked]');>

---

From: "Rahman, Akbar" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 18:48:34 -0400

Ok, we will make sure to engage the ADs during the process. Thanks for the guidance.

-----Original Message-----
From: Barry Leiba [[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 05:31 PM Eastern Standard Time
To: Rahman, Akbar
Cc: core WG
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-core-groupcomm status, post-telechat

That's fine, but please do engage with the ADs whose comments you're addressing, to make sure that they know you're working on it, and, if necessary, that they agree with your plan. 

Barry

On Thursday, August 21, 2014, Rahman, Akbar <[email-masked]> wrote:

	Hi Barry,

	

	Akbar & Esko

	
	-----Original Message-----
	From:�Barry Leiba [[email-masked] <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[email-masked]');> ]
	Sent:�Thursday, August 21, 2014 01:29 PM Eastern Standard Time
	To:�core WG
	Subject:�[core] draft-ietf-core-groupcomm status, post-telechat

	The "groupcomm" document still has several DISCUSS points on it, and
	is in Revised I-D Needed status after today's telechat.� It's clear
	that the consensus of the IESG is to re-target the document at
	Experimental status.� The authors should make that change in the next
	version, in addition to resolving the DISCUSS issues and addressing
	the other IESG comments.
	
	The document shepherd should pleas track this, prod as necessary, and
	make sure things get resolved and dealt with.� Please let me know when
	the document is ready for approval.� Please also confirm that the
	working group accepts the IESG's decision to go with Experimental, and
	if the working group doesn't, please explain why.
	
	Barry