Alia, Thanks for the update!
As a co-author, and as it has already passed WGLC and this is just a terminology update, I think it's ready for the second WGLC. Thanks, Andy On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Alia Atlas <[email protected]> wrote: > As you may recall, we successfully completed a WGLC on > draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-10. After that, there was concern about > the use of ITU terminology (composite-link and NPO) where the draft was not > actually using the exact meaning specified by the ITU. > > Therefore, it was decided to return the draft to the WG for a quick > terminology update (and also to address some other review comments). > > The changes in draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-11 are largely terminology > and clarifications; FR#1 appears to have been broken up into two separate > requirements. > > Since neither Curtis nor Lou Berger can make our Friday rtgwg slot, I'd > strongly encourage conversation here on the list to review and comment on > the updated draft. > > I'd like to get it in for WG last call shortly after IETF - and see the > other related work move along as well. > > Reviews are critical to complete this Advanced Multipath work in a > reasonable timeframe (well, starting from now - reasonable was passed a > while ago). > > Thanks, > Alia > > _______________________________________________ > rtgwg mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg > >
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
