Re: [bess] Introducing a one-implementation requirement before WG last calls

WG, we have reviewed the different comments posted on the list in response to our initial proposal. After thinking further about that, we'd like to propose the following as a way forward: At the same time we issue a Working Group Last Call we would ask for knowledge of existing

Re: [bess] Introducing a one-implementation requirement before WG last calls

Martin, That sounds reasonable to me. Cheers, Andy On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 4:28 AM, Martin Vigoureux < martin.vigour...@alcatel-lucent.com> wrote: > WG, > > we have reviewed the different comments posted on the list in response to > our initial proposal. > After thinking further about that,

Re: [bess] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-virtual-subnet-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Stephen: Hi! Xiaohu posted an update that we hope addresses your concerns. Pelase take a look. Thanks! Alvaro. ___ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] Alia Atlas' Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-virtual-subnet-06: (with DISCUSS)

Alia: Hi! Xiaohu posted an update which I think should address your concerns. Please take a look. Thanks! Alvaro. On 12/2/15, 11:13 PM, "Alia Atlas" > wrote: That works for me. Thanks, Alia On Dec 2, 2015 11:08 PM, "Xuxiaohu"

[bess] Alia Atlas' No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-virtual-subnet-07: (with COMMENT)

Alia Atlas has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-virtual-subnet-07: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer

Re: [bess] Introducing a one-implementation requirement before WG last calls

Martin, for me this seems a reasonable way forward On 14/12/15 10:28, "BESS on behalf of Martin Vigoureux" wrote: >WG, > >we have reviewed the different comments posted on the list in response >to our initial proposal.

Re: [bess] Introducing a one-implementation requirement before WG last calls

My opinion is unchanged; there is no need to impose any implementation requirement, nor is there any need to add more process hurdles that further slow down the progress of a document towards publication. Certainly there is no need to gather details about implementations, vendor releases,

Re: [bess] Introducing a one-implementation requirement before WG last calls

If that's what can be agreed on, I'm for it ... That puts at least something in terms of reality check between things being paper and going into STD tracks ... thanks --- tony _ "Simple, clear purpose and principles give rise to complex and

Re: [bess] Introducing a one-implementation requirement before WG last calls

Martin, Sounds like solid and reasonable approach! Regards, Jeff > On Dec 14, 2015, at 1:28 PM, Martin Vigoureux > wrote: > > WG, > > we have reviewed the different comments posted on the list in response to our > initial proposal. > After thinking