I am no the author of two drafts,
It should be more convinced that there is a scenario and PS about the
motivation of the work.
Thanks autho for publishing it quite recently, that would be more
appropriate to discuss them during the coming IETF meeting before accept
them.
Otherwise IETF is going
Hi, I'm in favor of both a) and b).
cheers,
--satoru
On 2012/09/25, at 13:45, Suresh Krishnan suresh.krish...@ericsson.com wrote:
Hi all,
During the softwire WG meeting at IETF84 a series of questions* to
determine the preferred solution in the meeting room indicated that the
sense of the
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document:
Dear Joel,
Thank you for the review.
Please see inline.
Cheers,
Med
-Message d'origine-
De : softwires-boun...@ietf.org
[mailto:softwires-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de Joel M. Halpern
Envoyé : vendredi 5 octobre 2012 17:15
À : A. Jean Mahoney
Cc : softwires@ietf.org;
Thank you for the prompt followup.
Taking things out of order, if the Discussion section were called
Limitations, I would have understood why it was there. It is not clear
to me that the content actually describes limitations though. It
describes design choices that need to be made in
Hi Suresh,
Thanks for clarifying.
I am in support of both a and b.
Regards,
Behcet
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 8:16 PM, Suresh Krishnan
suresh.krish...@ericsson.com wrote:
Hi Behcet,
On 10/04/2012 11:53 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
Dear Chairs,
I think that your call needs some clarification.
