kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Mon Apr 27 15:39:29 UTC 2015
However, the issue of how treat existing MoU was discussed at CWG.
We had members there.
Whether they raised the issue that you have difficulties with or not , they may wish to comment.
Whether we need to treat the existing MoU as they are or whether we have yo take into account the output of CWG is a matter to be examined.
When I proposed that we would have been in a better evaluation if the co chairs of CWG were to brief ICG , some radical person opposed to that.
In fact the case under discussion would have been better understood if such a brief was made,
I understand that IETF wants NO CHANGE to any things that was your position from the very
Sent from my iPhone
> On 27 Apr 2015, at 16:38, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko at piuha.net> wrote:
> For what it is worth, I think the ICG has been clear already earlier that all feedback to the processes needs to go through the communities. I think it may be helpful to re-iterate this, though. Milton: FYI, I supported your statement on this topic on our previous call that you were unable to attend.
> Also, Kavouss:
>> This is existing practice , Whether the same practice would be valid for transition we need to carefully read the CWG output on hoew these existing MoU are to be treated.
> The CWG output is not related to how the other communities handle their MoUs.
More information about the Internal-cg