Hi Tony, Regarding your msg07247, I voted Yes at:
http://www.doodle.com/3s9kihwbhbkxbnf2 because I believe this is the best single document to give an overview of the work done by RRG participants since April 2007. However, I believe the description of ILNP and the co-chairs' recommendation of ILNP has a number of deficiencies which I listed on 1 August: Re: [rrg] Fwd: I-D Action:draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-09.txt - ILNP problems http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg07185.html Neither Ran nor the co-chairs seem to be interested in these matters, but I understand from Toni Stoev's msg07188 that I am not alone in these concerns. You wrote: > One comment was received during this review cycle. This comment > was editorial and was addressed, and a new version of the draft > has been issued as draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-10.txt. I guess you are referring to Stephen D. Strowes' msg07190. Your statement "One comment was received during this review cycle." appears to be incorrect, since this ignores my msg07185. Toni Stoev also commented on -09 in msg07182, though I think this is not a request for you to change the draft. - Robin _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
