Re: [coman] are we there yet?

+1

On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name>wrote:

> I think that if enough interest is formed, it would be good to form a WG.
> It has indeed been a little quiet on this list. Personally, I think that
> the IETF does not yet have good answers to management of constrained
> devices and networks.
>
> The draft is a good step and is valuable to the community, IMO.
>
> Best regards
> Ulrich
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 7:02 AM, Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich) <
> mehmet.ersue@nsn.com> wrote:
>
>> Forming a WG is an option. However, we have left this open and dependent
>> on the community interest.
>>
>> Do you think it is important and should be pushed?
>>
>> Can folks please comment on the draft recently submitted?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Mehmet
>>
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: coman-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:coman-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
>> Of ext
>> > Michael Richardson
>> > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 9:32 AM
>> > To: coman@ietf.org
>> > Subject: [coman] are we there yet?
>> >
>> >
>> > Is the aim of COMAN to form a WG?
>> > The list has been rather quiet.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Michael Richardson
>> > -on the road-
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> coman mailing list
>> coman@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/coman
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> coman mailing list
> coman@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/coman
>
>

-- 
James Nguyen
Email: james.huy.nguyen@gmail.com