Hi Jeff, On 30/07/10 1:02 AM, "Jeffrey Haas" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Administrative comment: > > On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:00:55AM -0400, Christopher Morrow wrote: >> The meeting today had a call for WG Adoption of the subject document. >> Given 14 days of debate time means we decide Aug 12 2010. > > If they are only interested in a FCFS code point, then having the document > as a WG document isn't necessary. This is the main distinction with the > other document required code points. Thanks for the comment, I am confused about this however. The draft isn't only about acquiring a code-point. It is about providing knowledge back to the networking community covering, what I think, a useful mechanism to match BGP updates to a geographic location that endures historical inspection. Even if the code point is FCFS (which means I can reset the document status to informational) I still think it could be of value, and I think it might benefit from WG review. However I will acquiesce to the WG decision. Or have I misinterpreted your point? Cheers Terry _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
