Subject: Re: [CDNi] Adopting requirements draft as CDNI WG document

From: Francois Le Faucheur <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 14:28:40 +0200

Hello,

No objection have been raised so draft-lefaucheur-cdni-requirements-02 is now considered accepted as WG document.

Zhipeng suggested that a note be included along the lines of "the draft is not yet finished and other requirements may still be included." While this is somewhat redundant since a WG document is inherently candidate for change, this does not really hurt and avoids the risk that external standards forum tracking this work mis-interpret the status of that document. So that makes sense to me.
This is similar to the note we agreed be added to cdni-use case stating that " the draft is not yet finished and other use cases may still be included." 
Editors of cdni-requrements, please incorporate such a note in the next version.

Francois & Rich

On 22 Aug 2011, at 14:20, Woundy, Richard wrote:

> Folks,
> 
> As confirmation of the “hum” we took in the WG session at the IETF 81 meeting in Quebec City, please post on the list if there is any objection to moving the following draft to a CDNI WG draft:
> 
> draft-lefaucheur-cdni-requirements-02
> 
> If there are no objections by Friday September 2 2011, the draft above will be accepted as a WG document fulfilling the "requirements” deliverable.
> 
> -- Rich and Francois

---

From: "Kent Leung (kleung)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 08:02:29 -0700

OK.  I agree that a WG draft is a work in progress by definition.
However, we will add a statement to that effect in the document.

Kent

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch)
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:29 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [CDNi] Adopting requirements draft as CDNI WG document

Hello,

No objection have been raised so draft-lefaucheur-cdni-requirements-02
is now considered accepted as WG document.

Zhipeng suggested that a note be included along the lines of "the draft
is not yet finished and other requirements may still be included." While
this is somewhat redundant since a WG document is inherently candidate
for change, this does not really hurt and avoids the risk that external
standards forum tracking this work mis-interpret the status of that
document. So that makes sense to me.
This is similar to the note we agreed be added to cdni-use case stating
that " the draft is not yet finished and other use cases may still be
included." 
Editors of cdni-requrements, please incorporate such a note in the next
version.

Francois & Rich

On 22 Aug 2011, at 14:20, Woundy, Richard wrote:

> Folks,
> 
> As confirmation of the "hum" we took in the WG session at the IETF 81
meeting in Quebec City, please post on the list if there is any
objection to moving the following draft to a CDNI WG draft:
> If there are no objections by Friday September 2 2011, the draft above
will be accepted as a WG document fulfilling the "requirements"
deliverable.
> -- Rich and Francois

_______________________________________________
CDNi mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cdni