In message
<CAG4d1re2Kij1jZqmsWkASvv+1bvVSSX+fNBPGy_W-Mcu1n+=p...@mail.gmail.com>
Alia Atlas writes:
>
> K - so can we get any opinions and comments on CL Use-cases? I'll
> take a read through again and issue a WG Last Call tomorrow.
>
> Alia
Alia,
IMHO we should:
1. Focus on a repeat of the last call for CL requirements first.
2. Then solicit comments on CL Use Cases.
3. Then last call CL Use Cases if there are still no comments on it.
Since time has gone by (a lot) and the document has changed (a little)
we do have to repeat WG last call on CL requirements.
I don't think we should last call both at the same time. The focus of
most people with limited time to dedicate to this would be a thorough
read of CL Requirements, possible ignoring CL Use Cases.
CL requirements is more important, more thoroughly reviewed, and IMO
more ready to go with minimal if any changes. I just uploaded 09
(seconds ago) with the changes suggested earlier in this thread and
(so far) agreed to.
Curtis
ps - draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement
draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-use-cases
- for those looking for these at datatracker.ietf.org
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
