Re: [mpls] https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1435/

[Ross Callon <[e-mail]>]

I think that the problem with the word "milestone" is that "milestone" has a very specific meaning in the IETF. "step" seems like perhaps an understatement. How about "significant step"? 

Ross

-----Original Message-----
From: Loa Andersson [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 5:43 AM
To: Andrew G. Malis; Scott Mansfield
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [mpls] https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1435/

Folks,

I agree s/join/joint; but is not clear if we want to change "step"
to "milestone", depends on how formal we are. A milestone is something
we setup and tick off when we reached. A step (in my understanding) is
a bit less formal, a thing that we don't talk about beforehand, but that
could be recognized when we see the step taken .

Not a hard preference, but I'd stay with "step".

/Loa

On 2016-02-12 05:33, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
> Scott,
>
> “join” should be “joint”. Should “a step” be “a milestone”?
>
> Cheers,
> Andy
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Scott Mansfield
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     I have posted this reply...
>     https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1455/  Please review before I
>     send it out to the ITU-T.
>
>     Regards,
>     -scott.
>
>     -----Original Message-----
>     From: Loa Andersson [mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>]
>     Sent: Saturday, February 06, 2016 7:25 AM
>     To: Scott Mansfield; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>;
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     Subject: Re: https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1435/
>
>     Scott,
>
>     Since I wrote the words I don't think I need to hum, but just in
>     case ... hhhmmmmmmmmmmmmm
>
>     /Loa
>
>     On 2016-02-06 06:29, Scott Mansfield wrote:
>      > I'm ok with this.  Any other words?  Please hum if you think this
>     is ok and I will draft it up and put it into the tool.
>      >
>      > Thanks,
>      > -scott.
>      >
>      > -----Original Message-----
>      > From: Loa Andersson [mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>]
>      > Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 10:33 PM
>      > To: Scott Mansfield; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>;
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>      > Subject: Re: https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1435/
>      >
>      > Scott,
>      >
>      > So maybe just a short response.
>      >
>      > "Thanks for your liaison on the final approval of the MPLS-TP
>     Recommendations, this marks a step in the joint MPLS-TP project.
>      >
>      > IETF have to date published 45 MPLS-TP RFC from 7 working groups
>     and independent document. IETF still have 11 active Internet Drafts.
>      >
>      > We are looking forward to your support completing the MPLS-TP
>     project."
>      >
>      > I think you can correct grammar and spelling and send it timely.
>      >
>      > Working Group,
>      >
>      > Please comment on this?
>      >
>      > /Loa
>      >
>      > On 2016-02-04 21:13, Scott Mansfield wrote:
>      >> I'm willing to help, but I don’t see anything here worth
>     commenting on, unless there is a burning desire to make comments
>     now.  None of the documents liaised have changed dramatically since
>     early 2014.
>      >>
>      >> -scott.
>      >>
>      >> -----Original Message-----
>      >> From: Loa Andersson [mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>]
>      >> Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 5:58 AM
>      >> To: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>; Scott Mansfield
>      >> Subject: https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1435/
>      >>
>      >> Working Group,
>      >>
>      >> We have a liaison from SG15 that we need to decide on how to respond
>      >> to https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1435/
>      >> I've asked Scott to help us coordinate this.
>      >> Any comments are welcome.
>      >>
>      >> /Loa
>      >> mpls wg co-chair
>      >>
>     _______________________________________________
>     mpls mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>
>