Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Re: [Geopriv] Feedback on draft-rosen-geopriv-prefix-00

I agree with the draft, and see a need for the CAType prefixes.
I would like to see it made part of the standard.

Avery

> -----Original Message-----
> From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:geopriv-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
> Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 4:52 PM
> To: geopriv@ietf.org
> Subject: [Geopriv] Feedback on draft-rosen-geopriv-prefix-00
>
> We issued a WGLC on draft-rosen-geopriv-prefix-00
> (http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-rosen-geopriv-prefix-00.txt
> ) on November 2, and it ended on November 23. There were no comments
> to the list about the document during the WGLC. To progress this
> document, we need some indication from people (other than the author)
> that this is worth standardizing. If you think it's a good document,
> please send a quick note to the list saying so before the end of the
> week.
>
> Thanks,
> Alissa
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> Geopriv@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv