Folks, The WGLC has concluded already some time ago. In a meantime we (chairs) and the respective authors of both documents have had some constructive discussions on the background.
Based on the poll [2] got more "rough consensus" i.e. about 2/3 ;) However, as indicated by several WG members, merging these two documents would actually make sense. And chairs and the document authors agree with this. Thus, here is what we came up with. Both [1] and [2] will be merged and there the WG has an important role to say _how_ and _which_ parts go where. Based on the poll result [2] will serve as the basis that we start building upon. There will be named editors from both documents on the draft-ietf-dmm-*-00 (Dapeng and Juan-Carlos) and then rest are acknowledged as contributors (like it is a custom with many authors). Once the draft-ietf-dmm-*-00 is out, I encourage WG members to start working on the document already before the Orlando meeting. It would be good to have a properly revised version in Orlando WG meeting to discuss face to face. - Jouni & Julien On Dec 20, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Jouni Korhonen <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Dec 20, 2012, at 2:05 AM, Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Dear chairs, >> >> We have been working on an update of draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis, >> addressing the comments received on the mailing list and during the last >> meeting. Main changes from -02 are: >> >> - New section on 3GPP mobility. >> - New section on functional analysis. >> - New section on combined solution analysis. >> - Several fixes and clean-ups. >> >> We'd like to ask the chairs to replace [1] below with the new revision >> (draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis-03), that we have just submitted. > > > This is OK. Consider -03 as the document [1] for the adoption call. > > - Jouni & Julien. > > > > >> >> Thanks! >> >> Carlos >> >> On Wed, 2012-12-19 at 22:25 +0200, Jouni Korhonen wrote: >>> 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 > _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
