RE: Moving right along ...

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

Kireeti writes
> 
> Despite the energetic subject line, we the WG chairs have been
> lax in our duties.  So, here goes:
> 
> Lou has submitted the latest versions of the generalized
> signaling documents quite some time ago (thanks, Lou):
> 
> draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-04.txt
> draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-05.txt
> draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-06.txt
> 
> Also, Eric has posted the SONET/SDH documents (merci, Eric):
> 
> draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-02.txt
> draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-00.txt
> 
> All of these should have addressed the issues raised in the earlier
> versions.  Please read the new versions, and send your comments to
> the list by Tuesday Oct 23.  At that point, when the final round
>
Since (as you claim above) the WG chairs have been a bit lax in their
duties... is a 1 week review peried not a bit aggressive? In fact
I do like agressive schedules... but we should also be realistic and
be sensitive to the fact that some people may have other (non-IETF)
duties.

I would suggest that if anyone requests for a normal 2 week review
period that we should grant that, certainly if the requestor indeed
intends to seriously review.

> of comments have been addressed, these docs will go to IESG Last
> Call.  If any one objects to sending these docs to IESG Last Call,
> raise your issues now.
> 
It is named a "IETF Last Call"... but this is admin detail...

Bert