Re: [lmap] Merged framework draft

["Aamer Akhter (aakhter)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi  Dan,

Yes. I personally feel it's a good candidate for the initial WG I-D. Of course there are some 'tweaks' we'd all like to shape in.

aa

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 4:56 AM
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [lmap] Merged framework draft

Hi,

Thanks to Philip and all the authors for the good work.

We need however to be a little more aggressive. The WG charter includes the following milestone.

Sep 2013

Initial WG I-D for the LMAP Framework including terminology


According to the authors - is this I-D in good enough shape for becoming the initial WG I-D? If the authors say 'yes' the chairs can ask on the WG list about consensus on this issue.

We have a similar milestone for the Use Cases document.

Regards,

Dan



From: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 11:47 AM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: [lmap] Merged framework draft

We have been working on a framework draft that merges the previous 2 framework drafts & the terminology draft, as well as including various things that have been discussed on the list since.
Our plan is to produce an update before the Vancouver deadline. We have a few things that we're planning to work on, but we wanted to get it out in order to get everyone else's comments.
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-folks-lmap-framework-00.txt

Terminology:
Information Model definition tweaked, new definition for Subscriber and Test Traffic.

Protocol Model:
Added a high-level protocol model

Privacy considerations:
A substantial new section. It may be better removing it and security considerations into a new draft about threats and how to alleviate them?

Looking forward to the discussions!
Phil, Al, Paul, Marcelo, Aamer, Trevor.