I agree with Curtis' suggested plan to advance CL Requirements now and continue work on the other two drafts.
Cheers, Andy On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Curtis Villamizar <[email protected]> wrote: > > In message <CAG4d1rej2s37bt0ESO7NKUm6xjSe1ui= > [email protected]> > Alia Atlas writes: > > > That sounds good to me. > > > > I would really like to see the composite link work advance - > > preferably by or just after the next IETF. I encourage everyone to > > read and comment on it; I will do so as well and send comments > > separately. > > > > Alia > > > Alia, > > Perhaps we should consider advancing CL Requirements alone. It has > been quite stable for a long time. Perhaps repeat last call and > advance to the AD review. > > CL Use Cases has also been stable, but it has received so few comments > that it is hard to say there is concensus. It could stand some > improvement IMHO, and I'm an author. > > CL Framework will take some time. Progress may be needed on some of > the docs referenced by CL Framework before we can consider advancing > it. Referenced docs should at least all be WG docs with a reasonable > chance of advancing rather than being abandonned. > > Curtis > _______________________________________________ > rtgwg mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg >
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
