Re: [lmap] Merged framework draft

[Brian Trammell <[e-mail]>]

Hi, all,

I have not had a chance to do a detailed review of the draft, and there's IMO still the issue of capability advertisement/exchange to tackle, but this revision of the document appears ready for WG adoption on an initial review.

Cheers,

Brian


On 23 Sep 2013, at 14:32 , "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I also think this memo is worthy of "initial wg I-D".
> 
> And, same as many WG participants I'm sure, 
> there's a bit of text I'd like to tweak 
> (especially lines I contributed).
> 
> Al
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
>> [e-mail]
>> Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 7:04 AM
>> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [lmap] Merged framework draft
>> 
>> Also for myself. Fairly comprehensive and captures all of the major points
>> that have been discussed/agreed so far.
>> 
>> Trevor.
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
>>> marcelo bagnulo braun
>>> Sent: 23 September 2013 10:21
>>> To: [e-mail]
>>> Subject: Re: [lmap] Merged framework draft
>>> 
>>> agree
>>> 
>>> El 23/09/13 11:04, [e-mail] escribió:
>>>> 
>>>> Personally I think it is
>>>> 
>>>> *From:*Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>> *Sent:* 23 September 2013 09:56
>>>> *To:* Eardley,PL,Philip,TUB8 R; [e-mail]
>>>> *Subject:* RE: 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.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> lmap mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lmap
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> lmap mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lmap
>> _______________________________________________
>> lmap mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lmap
> _______________________________________________
> lmap mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lmap