I do not have a strong opinion on 4.7, but adding such requirement came from Multimob. Now you propose removing this requirement again. Does it mean you do not want to have it in at all? If yes, why?
Another option is that the Multimob group proposes alternative text to be more concrete about a multicast requirement according to the Multimob group's view how this should be covered. marco >-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >Behcet Sarikaya >Sent: Mittwoch, 3. April 2013 21:59 >To: Jouni Korhonen >Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] >Subject: Re: [DMM] WGLC starts for draft-ietf-dmm-requirements-03 > >Hi all, > >If Section 4.7 is removed, I am willing to support this call. > >The reason: it is immature to say anything on this issue even as a should. > >Regards, > >Behcet > > > >On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 1:55 AM, Jouni Korhonen <[email protected]> >wrote: > > > > Just a reminder. There has been zero WGLC reviews so far.. > > - Jouni > > > > On Mar 20, 2013, at 7:06 AM, Jouni Korhonen ><[email protected]> wrote: > > > Folks, > > > > This mail starts a two week WGLC for draft-ietf-dmm-requirements- >03. > > The issues, even editorials, should be recorded into the Issue Tracker > > for a control tracking whether everything has been addressed. We > > require minimum three reviews. The more the better, though. > > > > The WGLC ends on Wednesday 3rd April. > > > > - 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
