Same here Regards, Jeff
On Feb 6, 2013, at 3:14 PM, "Andrew G. Malis" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: 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]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: In message <CAG4d1rej2s37bt0ESO7NKUm6xjSe1ui=m20v5ye76ew8xz3...@mail.gmail.com<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
