Hi Christian,
I agree with what Lou with regards to it going too far to recast/redirect this
work any further. I did do a round
of changes based on our agreement to help with future uses, and while it's nice
that this work could lead to
these uses, those should be documented in another docume
Hi Valery,
I think we're getting a bit too caught in the details, to circle back:
> I think that in its current form the draft is too focused on a single
> application for
> the Aggregation and Fragmentation mode - IP-TFS. From architectural
> point of view I'd like to see the draft first defini
Christian Hopps writes:
WGLC is not too late to do changes, it is quite early in the process,
we still need to go to the IETF LC, and then through IESG etc. If
making these changes now will make document easier to read, that will
most likely make IETF LC and further steps easier, so it might save
Hi Tero,
I'm sorry some of the previous messages HTML at some point the message got
converted to that format. I actually prefer text as well.
It was not my intention to say anything was too late to change, only that the
WG has been discussing an IP-TFS solution for 2 years. This reorganization
Hi Tero,
Just to clarify, are you indicating Valery's changes should be made? If so then
I will update the document so we can continue to make progress.
Thanks,
Chris.
> On Feb 11, 2021, at 5:52 PM, Christian Hopps wrote:
>
> Signed PGP part
> Hi Tero,
>
> I'm sorry some of the previous mess
