On 7 Dec 2015, at 7:38, Kathleen Moriarty wrote:
Sent from my iPhone
[...]
I agree with the draft being informational as per the comment on my
ballot. However, language changes within the draft to make that point
more clear seem to be what Ben is after.
Ben, would you be able to provide a few text additions to add the
caveats that would help? I do see your point on the copied text, but
also that the intent of this draft is to document a PoC only.
If this draft is about a proof of concept, that would definitely change
my opinion. The my concerns about maintenance would be less ...
concerning.
But I did not get that from the text. Some clarification about that
would be helpful. I see the implementation section that describes a PoC
implementation of this draft, but not that this draft is intended to
document that PoC or be limited to a PoC.
[...]
Thanks!
Ben.
_______________________________________________
Lwip mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
