Hi Olaf, Please see inline. > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > [email protected] > Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 3:18 AM > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Softwires] GI-DS-lite as working group item? > > Hi folks, > > And to be clear: A WG document still needs work and > discussion inside the WG.
> But sometimes I have the feeling that today very often the > requirements for a document to become a WG item are set equal > to the requirements for a WG LC. [Ahmad] Not exactly. I understand very well that some operators need certain specific tools to fit their own migration strategy. Additionally, I do not want to debate the best way for operators to achieve their specific migration strategy. But, the least acceptable common sense is: We can not accept a document that claim one-size-fits-all concept in order to satisfy the forth mentioned specific migration strategy. IMO, before accepting whatever document, that document needs to be specific and applicable only to that specific migration need. Regards, Ahmad > But this may be my personal feeling only. > > Kind regards > Olaf > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
