It was clear from reviewing the comments on the list about the RR
document that we have consensus and that the WGLC is complete and we
will forward the RR document to the IESG.
As for the Use Case draft, there were some substantive comments that I'm
not sure were addressed in the latest revision and we are going to ask
the WG to review draft 4 in shortened WGLC.
geoff
PS - for those that are wondering we will also do a WGLC on the HC draft
nearly immediately.
On Mon, 2009-11-09 at 12:42 +0100, JP Vasseur wrote:
> Hi Carsten,
>
> How do you propose to close on the disagreement that we have on the
> routing requirement ID ?
>
> Thanks.
>
> JP.
>
> On Oct 28, 2009, at 11:48 AM, Eunsook Eunah Kim wrote:
>
> > Dear Geoff,
> >
> > how should i approach for the next step of routing requirements and
> > usecase?
> >
> > -eunah
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 9:23 AM, Hamid Mukhtar <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >> Dear Geoff,
> >>
> >> I would like to request a slot for the SNMP optimizations I-D.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 1:41 AM, Geoff Mulligan
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> Please send your thoughts on agenda items for the upcoming IETF
> >>> meeting.
> >>>
> >>> geoff
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 6lowpan mailing list
> >>> [email protected]
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 6lowpan mailing list
> >> [email protected]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > 6lowpan mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
