WG, authors,
I agree with Mach on both accounts
- the document is ready for wg adoption
- something has to be done about the abstract
I thought that there were a guideline that abstracts should be no more
than 20 lines, counting Header and blank lines this is 31. But as Mach
it is the level of detail that should be lifted a bit.
I think we normally don't place the "Requirement Language" as part of
the abstract or close to it. I seen it placed as a subsection to the
Introductiuon or an independent section after the Introduction.
That said - and if the authors agree - I don't think it is strictly
necessary to update this prior to accepting the document as a wg
document, but could be done as part as the working group processing the
document to Publication Request.
/Loa
On 26/05/2021 08:25, Mach Chen wrote:
Hi,
I have read the document, and support the adoption.
One quick comments about the abstract section, it seems too details, it's
better to more some of the content to the Introduction section.
Best regards,
Mach
-----Original Message-----
From: Pce [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
[email protected]
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2021 9:41 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Pce] Adoption of draft-litkowski-pce-state-sync
Dear all,
The document draft-litkowski-pce-state-sync has reached the head of our
adoption queue
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-litkowski-pce-state-sync/).
Do you consider this I-D is a good foundation for a WG item? Please share your
feedback using the PCE mailing list by May 31.
Regards,
Dhruv & Julien
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
--
Loa Andersson email: [email protected]
Senior MPLS Expert [email protected]
Bronze Dragon Consulting phone: +46 739 81 21 64
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
