Re: [ippm] draft-morton-ippm-owamp-registry call for adoption and draft-elkins-ippm-6man-pdm-option accepted for adoption

Thanks Kostas!

In case others would like to take a look at this short draft,
the URL will help:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-morton-ippm-owamp-registry-00

regards,
Al

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ippm [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kostas
> Pentikousis
> Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 11:21 AM
> To: Bill Cerveny; ippm@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [ippm] draft-morton-ippm-owamp-registry call for adoption
> and draft-elkins-ippm-6man-pdm-option accepted for adoption
> 
> Dear Bill, all,
> 
> | As noted in discussions for which the IPPM working group has been
> | cc’ed on, draft draft-morton-ippm-owamp-registry-00, "Registries for
> | the One-Way Active Measurement Protocol - OWAMP" has been proposed to
> | establish an OWAMP registry.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> | Please indicate:
> | (a) whether you support the addition of the milestone and the adoption
> | of the draft as a WG item to fulfill that milestone
> 
> I support both the milestone addition and draft adoption as a WG item.
> 
> | (b) whether you have read the draft
> 
> I did. Overall reads well, but needs some further editing. But it is a
> perfect start for the WG document. Some editorial suggestions/nits:
> 
> s/Metrics (WG in/Metrics WG in
> 
> s/for OMAMP until/for OWAMP until
> 
> s/OWAMP Control/OWAMP-Control/g
> 
> Should the reference to "section 3" in Sec. 3.1 of this draft ("Control
> Command Number Registry") be more specific, pointing instead to sec. 3.4
> of RFC4656?
> 
> In the table of sec. 3.2.4, perhaps it's better to be more specific and
> s/IPsec mode/IKEv2-derived Shared Secret Key
> 
> 
> | (c) whether you pledge to review the draft during the WG process.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Kostas
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> ippm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm