Hi, It seems this draft provides a template for analysis without any conclusion. Or did I missed somthing important? I would support if the draft could provide further insightful technology viewpoint. Or is it intentional for the WG to adopt first, and then generate the technology view?
Thanks Lizhong > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)" <[email protected]> > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Cc: > Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 13:57:05 +0000 > Subject: [nvo3] Poll for adoption and IPR check: > draft-gbclt-nvo3-gap-analysis-00.txt > This email begins a two week poll to help the chairs judge if there is > consensus to adopt draft-gbclt-nvo3-gap-analysis-00.txt as an NVO3 working > group draft. > > Please respond to this email on the list with 'support' or 'do not > support'. > > Please also send any comments on the draft to the NVO3 list. > > Please consider whether this draft takes the right basic approach to a gap > analysis, and is a good basis for the work going forward (and potential > future rechartering). It does not have to be perfect at this stage. > > Coincidentally, we are also polling for knowledge of any IPR that applies > to this draft, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with > IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). > > If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond to > this email whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. The draft will > not be adopted until a response has been received from each author and > contributor. > > If you are on the NVO3 WG email list but are not listed as an author or > contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any > IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. > > This poll closes on Friday 20th September. > > Regards > > Matthew and Benson > >
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
