I appreciate that the authors have modified the draft in response to some comments I made - and I believe the changes satisfy my concerns.
I support WG adoption with one significant caveat - the title of the document needs to be modified to accurately reflect the scope of the revised draft. This is now confined to defining how to advertise "routing timer parameters" - it is no longer a generalized "any flavor of routing parameter" - which is one of the points I made in my objections. Please modify the name to accurately reflect the redefined scope. Les > -----Original Message----- > From: rtgwg [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jeff Tantsura > Sent: Friday, August 04, 2017 12:46 PM > To: RTGWG > Cc: [email protected]; 'rtgwg-chairs' > Subject: Request for WG adoption of for draft-bryant-rtgwg-param-sync > > Dear RTGWG, > > The authors have requested the RTGWG to adopt for draft-bryant-rtgwg- > param-sync as the working group document. > > WG expressed support during the last RTGWG meeting and the authors have > addressed all the comments received. > Please indicate support or no-support by August 18, 2017. > > If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond to this > email stating of whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. The > response needs to be sent to the RTGWG mailing list. The document will not > advance to the next stage until a response has been received from each > author and each individual that has contributed to the document. > > Cheers, > Jeff > > > > _______________________________________________ > rtgwg mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
