Folks,
I hope you as a WG realise we are stuck with the next steps
and possible future work/rechartering etc until we get some
of the existing milestones completed. That involves:
1) getting requirements out of the WG
2) getting the gap analysis into the state that we can
really pinpoint the
As I said for the time being we'd like the WG to focus on completing
the existing deliverables.
Thank you.
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 7:44 AM, Marco Liebsch wrote:
> Julien,
> not sure what you mean with moot. We are aware that a framework is not yet
> considered by the charter. And I agree that the
Folk,
Due the lack of feedback, the I-D did not pass the WGLC. We'll
initiate another one soon.
- Jouni
On Apr 2, 2013, at 9:55 AM, Jouni Korhonen wrote:
>
> Just a reminder. There has been zero WGLC reviews so far..
>
> - Jouni
>
>
> On Mar 20, 2013, at 7:06 AM, Jouni Korhonen wrote:
Behcet,
You know very well why the Section 4.7 got inserted into the
document in the first place. If you have specific issues with
the current text, point those out and propose modifications.
- Jouni
On Apr 3, 2013, at 10:58 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> If Section 4.7 is removed
I do not have a strong opinion on 4.7, but adding such requirement
came from Multimob. Now you propose removing this requirement again.
Does it mean you do not want to have it in at all? If yes, why?
Another option is that the Multimob group proposes alternative text
to be more concrete about a mu
