On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 4:59 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>wrote: > On 2/17/14 9:17 AM, ext Jungkee Song wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com<mailto: >> art.barstow@nokia.com>> wrote: >> >> The only process requirement for a FPWD is that the group record >> consensus to publish it. However, it's usually helpful if the FPWD >> is feature complete from a breadth perspective but there is no >> expectation the FPWD is complete from a depth perspective. As >> such, if there are missing features, it would be good to mention >> that in the ED and/or file related bugs. >> >> I believe things are mostly addressed in a breadth perspective albeit >> quite a few issues are still being discussed and sorted out. We are >> currently drafting the ED and thought the F2F is sort of a right time to >> have a consensus for FPWD but think it'll be nicer if we can make it even >> before that to get a wider review as soon as possible. >> > > Given the broad interest in this spec, I think it would be helpful to move > toward FPWD "as soon as possible". Would you please give a "rough > guestimate" on when you think spec can ready for a CfC to publish a FPWD? > I've been waiting until we have all the algorithms filled in. It's a non-sensical document until then.
Received on Tuesday, 18 February 2014 20:06:09 UTC