Hi
Thank you for your response and feed backs. See my response in the text
body as well as in your text. I think we are making progress.
[draft-mglt-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation] and
[draft-mglt-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options] are distinct
documents. The one describes the
- The architecture document
[draft-mglt-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation] in NOT CPE specific.
- The DHCP Options document
[draft-mglt-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options] is currently CPE
specific.
Ah, I see. That definitely needs to be clarified.
- a) Explicitly mention
On 20 Jun 2014, at 06:07, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
As Tim mentioned a couple of days ago, there has been some productive
discussion about how to fix the routing section of the architecture document
so that it satisfies the concerns that were raised during IESG review. Ray
On 9 Jul 2014, at 16:34, Ray Bellis ray.bel...@nominet.org.uk wrote:
As with the previous WGLC (albeit that was effectively immediately rendered
moot by the WG’s unanimous rejection of the routing text that WGLC is the
changes to section 3.5.
Sorry, that final paragraph should have read:
Ray and I are working on the Agenda for homenet, and are already a couple of
days tardy for which we apologize. We have already received some requests for
agenda time, and have also reserved space for a couple of standing items. If
you don’t see your item below, please let us know.
IETF 90
