[dtn-interest] Re: [ltp] update to sdnv draft

Hi Wes,

Seems like it ought be an individual submission as informational,
though I've no objection to it being an RG output (if you want that
we'll need to jump through some different, though not necessarily,
less tedious hoops),

S.

Wesley Eddy wrote:
> All of the helpful comments that I received on the SDNV draft were
> incorporated into an update:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-eddy-dtn-sdnv-01.txt
> 
> I think this clarifies some of the questions people have had around
> SDNVs and the decisions that were made.  I think it is fairly complete
> and do not want to spend too many more cycles on it.  I'm not certain if
> it has any utility as either an RG document or an individual submission
> to the RFC-editor, or if it should just be left to expire.  Opinions from
> implementers of BP and/or LTP would be helpful in deciding.
> 
> --
> Wesley M. Eddy
> Verizon Federal Network Systems
> _______________________________________________
> ltp mailing list
> ltp@irg.cs.ohiou.edu
> http://irg.cs.ohiou.edu/mailman/listinfo/ltp
> 