Re: [PWE3] VCCV2

	So to be clear - because I had to re-re-re-read the options listed below 3 times to get that straight in my head, we should start with doing a quick document now.

	--Tom
 

On Sep 6, 2012:1:08 PM, at 1:08 PM, Andrew G. Malis <amalis@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yaakov and Tom,
> 
> Matthew and I just talked about the poll results. There were no votes
> for option A, and the votes were pretty much split between options B
> and C. Since C is a superset of B, Matthew and I are calling consensus
> on a slightly modified C, with the word "possibly" removed, so that it
> now reads "C – A and then B later on".
> 
> Thanks,
> Andy and Matthew
> 
> On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Yaakov Stein <yaakov_s@rad.com> wrote:
>> PWE chairs,
>> 
>> At the meeting Tom and I asked whether the WG wanted a quick update
>> document, or whether a full rewrite of all the VCCV RFCs was desired.
>> 
>> Stewart suggested that we first do a quick update and thereafter a
>> "tutorial".
>> 
>> To a quick poll at the meeting there was (in the words of the minutes) an
>> underwhelming response.
>> 
>> My own email to the list elicited only three responses.
>> 
>> Could you ask for people to express their opinions ?
>> 
>> (A – quick doc   B – full doc   C – A and then possibly B later on)
>> 
>> (I guess we have heard from Stewart in favor of C, and Greg M, Dave A, and
>> Mach C in favor of B.
>> 
>> I personally like C too.).
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Y(J)S
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> pwe3 mailing list
>> pwe3@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>> 
>