[I2nsf] Stability call for draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology-03

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

Hi WG,

The framework document got updated to match the terminology document which was a
good first test.

Now we would like to make sure that the terminology as currently documented is
something we can all work with. Hence this call for review and opinion.

Please respond to the question "Is the terminology draft stable?"

1. No. Major changes are needed.
If you do this you are duty bound to point out the problems, and you are
expected to help solve them.

2. Yes, but I haven't really read it.
If you do this we will chuckle and probably make you stand up at the next WG
meeting.

3. Yes, but I have some minor concerns.
You'll need to point them out and help fix them, but we will still be able to
consider the document as a good basis for future work.

4. Yes, I think this is something we can use as our foundation.

Note that Linda and I don't intend last-calling this document for a bit as we
suspect new terms will show up as other work progresses.

Cheers,
Adrian