On 4/4/2013 11:23 PM, Jouni Korhonen wrote:
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:
FWIW, the document looks good to me. I know the WGLC has ended
though, and I haven't followed the discussions in the wg as
closely as I should, so I don't know how well it matches the
view of the group.
Stig
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
_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
