Makes sense. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Melinda Shore Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 8:20 PM To: Eric Gray Cc: Bocci, Matthew (Matthew); [email protected]; Romascanu, Dan (Dan) Subject: Re: [nvo3] Poll for WG adoption of draft-ashwood-nvo3-operational-requirement-03 Importance: High
On 8/27/13 1:47 PM, Eric Gray wrote: > So, my support for adoption of this draft depends on the authors > willingness to make the modifications necessary for the draft to > fulfill its role as intended in the WG charter. I don't expect -00 working group drafts to be particularly good, and I don't feel that adoption should be contingent on how close a document is to being publication-ready. However, this one is so far off the mark that I think that it might be a good idea if the authors revised it prior to the issuance of another adoption call. The basic issue here is whether or not the authors understand the issues that Dan raised. They've indicated that they're willing to revise the draft according to his suggestions but frankly the charter text really is very clear. I'm not opposed to adopting a draft by these authors but I'm opposed to adopting *this* draft. Melinda _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
