I've reviewed both the documents and here is my feedback. 1. Both the documents are well written and many points are valid and equally many points are also debatable, but is not a blocker for the draft adoption. 3. Given the efforts put in by the Authors of both the documents, I'd hate to pick one document. This is literally a beauty context and they all look lovely :)
So, I'd suggest a merger of both of the documents, or some how split the work into two parts and let both the groups work on respective parts. Sri >Le 19/12/2012 21:25, Jouni Korhonen a écrit : >> 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 dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >> >> > > >_______________________________________________ >dmm mailing list >dmm@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
