Of course, I support the WG working on this :-) The offer of a review from Luis is gratefully accepted. That will make for a nice first revision inside the WG.
Joe. Yes, I'd be interested to hear what other's think about your point, and to add text to clarify the issue. Cheers, Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: OPSAWG [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tianran Zhou > Sent: 05 June 2017 02:55 > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for draft-wu-opsawg-service-model- > explained-06 > > Dear OPSAWG, > > In Seoul, we got enough interest and positive response on this service models > explained draft. > By the authors' request, this email starts a formal poll. The chairs would like to > know if the WG participants agree that the following document should be > adopted as a WG document in OPSAWG. > > Service Models Explained > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wu-opsawg-service-model-explained/ > > The adoption poll will take two weeks. Please let us know your opinion by June > 19. It would also be good to hear who is willing to review this document. > > Since we already found that the majority of the f2f participants at our IETF97 > session like this idea, please do speak up now if you do not agree or have serious > objections (with explanation of course). > > Regards, > Tianran, OPSAWG Co-Chair > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
