Hi,
I support this draft.
As a followup to the previous inquiry by Alex, I also noticed that only
the synchronous configuration is explained in the draft.
Maybe, the asynchronous configuration should also be addressed ?
Regards,
IRU
On 12/10/2015 1:05 PM, h chan wrote:
I support the draft.
Hi,
I also support the adoption.
However, I have a slight concern.I find Figure 1 little too specific and
it might mislead the audience.
Maybe the wording should be changed in order to emphasize that this is
just an instance.
Or else, I think the use case should be dropped.
However, having
