I’m Ok with this approach. When/if the draft gets adopted the new version would be published with the new name.
Cheers, Jeff P.S. Stewart – Unless you have changed your name to “Gmail”, you might want to change it to reflect your real name ;-) -----Original Message----- From: Gmail <[email protected]> Date: Friday, August 4, 2017 at 14:48 To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[email protected]> Cc: Jeff Tantsura <[email protected]>, RTGWG <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, rtgwg-chairs <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Request for WG adoption of for draft-bryant-rtgwg-param-sync NP, we should also change the draft name, but suggest that is done when the adoption poll completes. Stewart Sent from my iPad > On 4 Aug 2017, at 22:44, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]> wrote: > > I appreciate that the authors have modified the draft in response to some comments I made - and I believe the changes satisfy my concerns. > > I support WG adoption with one significant caveat - the title of the document needs to be modified to accurately reflect the scope of the revised draft. This is now confined to defining how to advertise "routing timer parameters" - it is no longer a generalized "any flavor of routing parameter" - which is one of the points I made in my objections. > > Please modify the name to accurately reflect the redefined scope. > > Les > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: rtgwg [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jeff Tantsura >> Sent: Friday, August 04, 2017 12:46 PM >> To: RTGWG >> Cc: [email protected]; 'rtgwg-chairs' >> Subject: Request for WG adoption of for draft-bryant-rtgwg-param-sync >> >> Dear RTGWG, >> >> The authors have requested the RTGWG to adopt for draft-bryant-rtgwg- >> param-sync as the working group document. >> >> WG expressed support during the last RTGWG meeting and the authors have >> addressed all the comments received. >> Please indicate support or no-support by August 18, 2017. >> >> If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond to this >> email stating of whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. The >> response needs to be sent to the RTGWG mailing list. The document will not >> advance to the next stage until a response has been received from each >> author and each individual that has contributed to the document. >> >> Cheers, >> Jeff >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rtgwg mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
