Folks, I hope you as a WG realise we are stuck with the next steps and possible future work/rechartering etc until we get some of the existing milestones completed. That involves:
1) getting requirements out of the WG 2) getting the gap analysis into the state that we can really pinpoint the gaps that cannot be solved with current deployment practises Recruiting people outside the (plentiful) authors to do a proper review (i.e., a bit more challenging than a one liner) should not be an overwhelming task.. The DMM list itself has 795 members. - Jouni & Julien On Apr 4, 2013, at 11:45 AM, Jouni Korhonen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Folk, > > Due the lack of feedback, the I-D did not pass the WGLC. We'll > initiate another one soon. > > - Jouni > > > On Apr 2, 2013, at 9:55 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
