Alex, first of all, thank you for filing the issues to the site.
comments inline. 2012/10/26 Alexandru Petrescu <[email protected]>: > Hello Arifumi, > > Thank you for the email. I am trying to udnerstand what is meant by > qualifying them as minor and trivial? Some of them have Type as > "Enhancement". I mean Priority value listed on each issue. > Also, what do these qualifications mean with respect to progressing the > draft? Does it mean they'd supposedly have to be solved in order to > progress? (when I created some of them I was wondering the same thing). This document has passwd WGLC. So the progress should mean IESG review. I think all the issues have to be solved to progess. But, I want to have all the issues posted to the site, and try to work with important ones if we have. > > Additionally, two issues were posted by Ivo Sedlacek " Question to > draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option-05" on October 24th, 2012. Shall we > discuss these 2 issues? Should one upload these 2 issues on the tracker? I think we do not need to upload, as far as any disagreement are not raised to my answering comment. Thanks. > > Thanks and listening to advice, > > Alex > > Le 26/10/2012 11:00, Arifumi Matsumoto a écrit : >> >> All, >> >> as far as I see the issue tracker site, only the minor or trivial >> issues are raised about the dhcp route option. >> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/mif/trac/report/1 >> >> Please report an issue to the sie, if you have one. >> >> Thanks. _______________________________________________ mif mailing >> list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > mif mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif _______________________________________________ mif mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
