Re: [Geopriv] draft-ietf-geopriv-lbyr-requirements-02 ???

At 07:53 AM 3/30/2008, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>It seems that you are saying that Roger has to keep things going.

All I'm saying is that there was never a post articulating what the 
consensus reached answers were to each of the 3 questions I asked on 
the list.  I don't believe that is asking a lot. Do you think this is 
asking too much?

Each of the 3 questions had ~ 5 to 75 responses, so there were a lot 
of folks interested in the questions, and obviously the first 
response didn't answer any of the 3 Qs right away.

>Roger, could you post a description of the outstanding issues with a
>suggestions on how to address them?
>
>Ciao
>Hannes
>
>James M. Polk wrote:
> > At 12:40 PM 3/29/2008, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> >> Given the status of HELD this document should have been finished a while
> >> ago.
> >> I am not even sure whether I have seen a WGLC for it.
> >>
> >> What are the next steps for it?
> >> Why isn't it done already?
> >
> > weeeeelllll....
> >
> > There were 3 fairly substantiative questions posted against -01 of the
> > ID just before the -0X deadline, and there needs to be time for proper
> > review of -02 to see if this version answers at least these 3 questions.
> >
> > I think 1 has been answered
> >
> > I think another has not reached consensus
> >
> > and the last wasn't answered at all
> >
> > but this is memory (which may or may not be reliable)
> >
> >
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Geopriv mailing list
> >> Geopriv@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>
>_______________________________________________
>Geopriv mailing list
>Geopriv@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv