Hello folks, I support document [2] and some beneficial contents of [1], I think, can be merged to [2] Thank you.
BRs, Heeyoung JUNG > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Jouni Korhonen > Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 5:25 AM > To: [email protected] > Cc: Julien Laganier > Subject: [DMM] Call for WG Adoption of a "current practices and gap > analysis" document > > > Folks, > > We are unfortunately slipping our milestone, our (chairs) apologies for > that. The next step is to select a "current practices and gap analysis" > document to serve as the basis for the future WG document. We consider > two documents on this topic to choose from: > > [1] draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis-02 > [2] draft-liu-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01 > > and we as a WG need to decide which one is going to form the _basis_ for > the WG document. > > Please voice your preference either for [1] or for [2] on the mailing > list. We would appreciate if you can also provide a one-liner > justification for your selection. The chairs will determine if there is > (rough) consensus from active WG participants to proceed with selecting > one document against the other. > > The call starts today 19th Dec 2012 and ends by 10th Jan 2013. We have a > longer three week call now due the holiday season in between. > > - Jouni & Julien > _______________________________________________ > dmm mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
