Re: [Roll] Poll for WG adoption of mrhof

Ah, ok. Clearly my memory is faulty! Thanks for the clarification.

Phil

(sent from a phone)

On Sep 22, 2010, at 9:22 AM, Mukul Goyal <mukul@uwm.edu> wrote:

> Hi Phil,
>
>> Sure, sorry about that. I saw Mukul poll for the p2p draft so  
>> thought I would do so as well. For future reference, is this an  
>> official part of IETF process or just something you'd prefer (happy  
>> to go along)?
>
> Here are the emails regarding my request for WG status for p2p draft  
> and the actual poll that JP initiated. Looking at the emails, one  
> can argue both ways whether I initiated the poll or JP did. But the  
> truth is that people responded only to JP's message. My message  
> received a grand total of zero responses.
>
> :)
>
> Mukul
>
> ----- Forwarded Message -----
> From: "Mukul Goyal" <mukul@uwm.edu>
> To: "roll" <roll@ietf.org>
> Sent: Sunday, August 8, 2010 9:32:57 PM
> Subject: [Roll] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-dt-roll-p2p- 
> rpl-02
>
> Hi all,
>
> Here is the new version of the P2P draft. It takes in account all  
> the comments received so far.
>
> I would like to request WG status for the draft.
>
> Comments welcome.
>
> Regards
> Mukul
>
>
> ----- Forwarded Message -----
> From: "JP Vasseur" <jpv@cisco.com>
> To: "ROLL WG" <roll@ietf.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 2:30:09 PM
> Subject: [Roll] Adoption of draft-dt-roll-p2p-rpl-02.txt as Working  
> Group    document ?
>
> Dear all,
>
> draft-dt-roll-p2p-rpl-02.txt has been presented several times and
> discussed on the mailing list. Could you let us know whether or not
> you think that draft-dt-roll-p2p-rpl-02.txt should be adopted as a
> ROLL Working Group document (feel free to justify) ?
>
> Thanks.
>
> JP.
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll