Subject: Re: [Teas] WG Adoption poll - draft-nsdt-teas-ns-framework-04

From: Eric Gray <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 10:05:33 -0400

Yes/Support

> On Aug 31, 2020, at 8:55 AM, Lou Berger <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> All,
> 
> This is start of a *two* week poll on making draft-nsdt-teas-ns-framework-04 a TEAS working group document. Please send email to the list indicating "yes/support" or "no/do not support". If indicating no, please state your reservations with the document. If yes, please also feel free to provide comments you'd like to see addressed once the document is a WG document.
> 
> The poll ends September 14th.
> 
> Thank you,
> Lou and Pavan
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 09:40:16 -0400

All,

The poll period has expired with no comments --- in support or against.

Our feeling is this is likely due to the lively discussion on the
definitions document.  We have been considering what the right next step
is on this topic and for the two polled documents.  Our current thinking
is that it makes sense to hold an interim meeting in a few weeks on to
discuss these documents and how to move forward on a framework for NS.
We expect that this discussion will be based on the definition document
update per the adoption discussion and the DT framework document. (Other
documents would be included if/as relevant.) Please stay tuned for more
details on the interim.

We are hoping to sync up with the DT later this week or early next week
to review the WG poll results and plan for the interim -- as usual we
expect this informal meeting to be announce on the list and open to all.

We of course welcome comments and contributions on the topic and the
interim.

Lou and Pavan

On 8/31/2020 8:55 AM, Lou Berger wrote:
> All,
>
> This is start of a *two* week poll on making
> draft-nsdt-teas-ns-framework-04 a TEAS working group document. Please
> send email to the list indicating "yes/support" or "no/do not support".
> If indicating no, please state your reservations with the document. If
> yes, please also feel free to provide comments you'd like to see
> addressed once the document is a WG document.
>

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2020 14:09:07 +0300

I wanted to voice my support for this document to be adopted. (Despite active discussion of some specific issues in the other document, which probably has consumed people’s time).

Jari

---

From: Xufeng Liu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2020 10:04:10 -0400

yes/support

Thanks,
- Xufeng

On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 7:07 AM Jari Arkko <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I wanted to voice my support for this document to be adopted. (Despite
> active discussion of some specific issues in the other document, which
> probably has consumed people’s time).
>
> Jari
>

---

From: Gyan Mishra <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 18:29:35 -0400

I support WG Adoption.

I know there has been debate over transport slice definition as that is an
important topic.

This document is well written and I agree is ready for advancement.

The only minor Nit I have is with use of the phrase “IETF technologies” or
“IETF VPN”.

This is the first I have seen that term used in any draft.

Joking aside is there an RFC that defines IETF VPN or IETF Technologies.

Kind Regards

Gyan

On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 10:04 AM Xufeng Liu <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> --

<http://www.verizon.com/>

*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *

*M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike *Silver Spring, MD