A new version has been posted with all the comments addressed, and so I'm requesting publication.
W On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 9:25 AM, Johannes Merkle <johannes.mer...@secunet.com> wrote: > > > Warren Kumari schrieb am 06.03.2015 um 18:45: >> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 12:17 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder >> <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: >>> Dear chairs, >>> >>> I think I raised some points during WG last call that should be >>> addressed and I think others supported this. So I would assume that a >>> revised I-D is needed first before this goes to the IESG. >> >> Yup. Status in the datatracker is marked as: Revised I-D Needed - >> Issue raised by WGLC >> >> I can still write up the shepherd report (it's not likely to change >> much), but we'll not submit till the draft has been revised. > > I have already updated my internal draft, but, due to the IETF 92, submission > is not possible until March 22nd. > > -- > Johannes > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
