[{"author": "John Scudder", "text": "

\u2026 listening to dhruv, maybe I should have reviewed the draft before sounding off. Because his points are good.

", "time": "2022-07-28T21:45:24Z"}, {"author": "John Scudder", "text": "

It also seems to me that the WG can adopt it as a single doc and if we decide to split it later that need not involve another full heavyweight adoption process. ISTR having done something similar in IDR a while back.

", "time": "2022-07-28T21:47:37Z"}, {"author": "Julien Meuric", "text": "

John Scudder said:

\n
\n

\u2026 listening to dhruv, maybe I should have reviewed the draft before sounding off. Because his points are good.

\n
\n

The discussion will go on on the list, you'll be allowed to change your mind. ;-)

", "time": "2022-07-28T21:47:52Z"}, {"author": "Julien Meuric", "text": "

John Scudder said:

\n
\n

It also seems to me that the WG can adopt it as a single doc and if we decide to split it later that need not involve another full heavyweight adoption process. ISTR having done something similar in IDR a while back.

\n
\n

Good to know it's happened before.

", "time": "2022-07-28T21:48:31Z"}, {"author": "Andrew Stone", "text": "

@ John suggestion, that seems fair. I agree highlighting which sections are normative vs informative is a good idea, but I'm still leaning towards having it enclosed in one \"big\" document since it does cover various content that does inter-twine a bit. Of course, if we can isolate them in a single document then it means it's feasible to split the document, but it would be nice to point to one document that says here's \"the\" document that clarifies the current state of operational concerns, as its a combination of normative and informative

", "time": "2022-07-28T21:51:36Z"}, {"author": "J\u00e1nos Farkas", "text": "

right, all the previous comments apply

", "time": "2022-07-28T22:13:50Z"}, {"author": "Lou Berger", "text": "

@dhruv +1

", "time": "2022-07-28T22:13:56Z"}]