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

Adrian: 

It appears due to my error, I did not respond to this quickly.   Answers
are: 

1) yes - no major changes needed
2) I've read it and edited the terminology document. 
3) It is good for a foundation. 

Sue 

-----Original Message-----
From: I2nsf [mailto:i2nsf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 1:33 PM
To: i2nsf@ietf.org
Subject: [I2nsf] Stability call for draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology-03

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

_______________________________________________
I2nsf mailing list
I2nsf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf