Hello Stan,
Of course I understand that WGLC is not for me to decide, and I never
made any such claim. I only pointed out that the WG as a whole did not
raise this issue, and for that reason I would not have expected for the
WG to use the issue as the basis for the decision about WGLC.
I really would never make any such claim that it was my decision -- and
in 20 years participation in the IETF, I have never even made any such
hint in any working group.
Regards,
Charlie P.
On 7/1/2015 11:03 AM, Stan Ratliff wrote:
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Charlie Perkins <charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
As best I understand it, resolving this issue is NOT blocking a
Last-Call-ready document.
Then your understanding is different than mine. Whether an issue blocks WGLC is *NOT* your call. It's *NOT* "our" (the editing team's) call. It's the working group's call. And considering the highly politicized, loooooooong 10 1/2 YEAR history of this draft, and the number of people hunting, searching, and begging for an issue to use as the stake-in-the-heart-of-AODVv2.....
We will have issues arising from Last Call -- that is guaranteed. This could just as well be one of them.
See above. Or perhaps, I should be clearer - If this issue is still languishing at Prague, I will recommend, as chair, that the charter item for a reactive protocol be deleted. This is absolute madness, and it has to stop. I'm also considering other actions.
Stan
