Subject: status of draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 08:33:25 -0400

As you may recall, we successfully completed a WGLC on
draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-10.  After that, there was concern about
the use of ITU terminology (composite-link and NPO) where the draft was not
actually using the exact meaning specified by the ITU.

Therefore, it was decided to return the draft to the WG for a quick
terminology update (and also to address some other review comments).

The changes in draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-11 are largely terminology
and clarifications; FR#1 appears to have been broken up into two separate
requirements.

Since neither Curtis nor Lou Berger can make our Friday rtgwg slot, I'd
strongly encourage conversation here on the list to review and comment on
the updated draft.

I'd like to get it in for WG last call shortly after IETF - and see the
other related work move along as well.

Reviews are critical to complete this Advanced Multipath work in a
reasonable timeframe (well, starting from now - reasonable was passed a
while ago).

Thanks,
Alia

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 07:23:57 +0200

Alia,

Thanks for the update!

As a co-author, and as it has already passed WGLC and this is just a
terminology update, I think it's ready for the second WGLC.

Thanks,
Andy

On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Alia Atlas <[email-masked]> wrote:

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