<as chair> If you think the draft is missing something big, or has some other serious shortcoming that makes it inappropriate to hold a WGLC, please speak up now. We'll give everyone a few days to look over this version, and then decide if we will start it.
If you had signed up to review NOW would be the time to do it, on this version. That was NOW, and not "soon", please. Brian On 10/23/09 2:38 PM, "Cullen Jennings" <[email protected]> wrote: > > We just submitted a new version of the base draft at > > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-p2psip-base-05.txt > > (there is a new version of the sip-usage as well). > > The major changes are mostly a very long and excruciating editorial > pass to try and improve the grammar. > > At this point, I don't know of any significant issues that need to be > resolved. I think the draft is ready for WGLC. > > I'm sure that during WGLC some major issues will come up, some > important decisions will be made about what needs to be mandatory and > such, and we will find several small inconsistencies and typos in the > draft as well as things that need a clearer explanation. This will > take some time and I expect multiple more revisions for this draft > before it is published, however, I do think this is the right time to > start WGLC. Lets get the issues on the table and then we can start > resolving them. > > Thanks, > Cullen <in my individual contributor role> > > > _______________________________________________ > P2PSIP mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
