Hello Toerless, hello Michael, Sorry for not being able to react earlier. Based on the response from Michael, would that be your view as well Toerless? We just want to ensure that we can go forward with the split under the assumption that beside the split as technically described in Thomas' last email (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/ydPpdwGC4sJ3GY5Tq44nK1hZ4MU/), we should come up with names for the drafts reflecting the target and potential adaptations in the authors list. I would assume that the two resulting drafts can be submitted as WG documents, as they basically reflect the current WG draft content in separate documents.
Toerless, can we proceed in that way? Best regards Steffen > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Richardson <[email protected]> > Sent: Donnerstag, 23. September 2021 00:36 > To: Werner, Thomas (T RDA CST SEA-DE) <[email protected]>; > [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; Fries, Steffen (T RDA CST) <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Anima] BRSKI-AE document split discussion > > > I think that Thomas' explanation makes sense. > > Split the document. I suggest you clone the repo, and post a second copy > under > a new name. > > -- > Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) > Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide > > > _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
