I support adoption as well (as the draft rightly requires the ICMP I-D for notification)
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Kyle Larose <[email protected]> wrote: > Likewise, as one of the authors, I support adoption. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Captive-portals [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Dave Dolson > Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 10:21 PM > To: Erik Kline; [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Captive-portals] [adoption call] draft-larose-capport- > architecture > > As one of the authors, I support adoption. > > David Dolson > Sandvine > Original Message > From: Erik Kline > Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 7:04 AM > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: [Captive-portals] [adoption call] draft-larose-capport- > architecture > > > All, > > As indicated in the minutes from Prague > [https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-99-capport/], there was a > general hum in favor of the architecture document: > > """ > 1. for arch doc, do we want a milestone for architecture. Humming: in > favor. > 2. is the document a good basis for the milestone? Humming: in favor. > """ > > This email is to initiate a two week adoption call for: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-larose-capport-architecture/ > > Feedback requested, even if only to restate an opinion expressed in Prague. > > Thanks, > -Erik > > _______________________________________________ > Captive-portals mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals > > _______________________________________________ > Captive-portals mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals >
_______________________________________________ Captive-portals mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals
