> On Jul 5, 2017, at 6:42 PM, Aaron Falk <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 29 Jun 2017, at 16:53, Michael Welzl wrote: > >>> 1. **`draft-gjessing-taps-minset-05.txt`** >>> >>> * There’s been some interesting discussion on the draft. Are there any >>> specific topics we should set aside time to discuss? >>> >> >> I appreciated this discussion much, but personally I don’t think know of any >> specific topic that we need to discuss here - plus, there seem to be plenty >> of other good things to talk about which will all need time. > > Fair enough. In that case, my question is what it needed to finish the > document? Are there any open issues?
Well - IMO this version is a first “real complete” version - i.e. once the group reads, comments, and we incorporate fixes, we can be done quite quickly. I don’t think there’s anything truly major missing. I’m happy about the first comments that have already come in, and we’ll address them in the next version (after Prague) - the most important thing being to work out a more comprehensive list of decisions to be taken *initially* (e.g. the reliability case that Philipp and Theresa pointed out, that’s a clear bug). The draft will be presented by Naeem Khademi, who isn’t an author, on behalf of us authors. I hope that’s acceptable! I’ll do my best to be remotely available for discussion too. I think it makes sense for this presentation to focus on what’s new: the abstract API that we designed. I think this is an interesting thing with pretty straightforward yet important implications on other TAPS APIs (I’d hope). Cheers, Michael _______________________________________________ Taps mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
