Hi, This is a well written draft and easy (at least for me) to understand.
I think it is a great starting point for the wg problem statement. Thanks, Dave On 7/27/12 5:20 PM, "Thomas Narten" <[email protected]> wrote: >As most of you probably know, a revised version of the problem >statement was posted last week. It contains many text changes, most of >which were discussed on the list. The main thrust of the text changes >was general clarification and removing (or tweaking) wording that was >perceived as possibly biasing the problem statement in favor (or >against) a particular solution or approach. I believe I have >responded to all the comments that were raised on the list, but if I >missed anyone's comments, please send me a reminder. There are a >couple of notes I need to respond to subsequent to the posting of the >document (e.g., from J. Farkos) that I haven't gotten to yet. > >Consistent with yesterday's message from the chairs and to make the >best use of Tuesday's time slot, it would be helpful if issues with >the current version of the document could be raised in advance of the >Tuesday session. Also, when raising issues, it would help to be clear >whether the issue is fundamental to accepting the document as a WG >document, or whether they are comments that should be addressed in the >next revision. > >Thomas (on behalf of all the authors) > >_______________________________________________ >nvo3 mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
