Re: FLUTE v2

Hi Rod,
Does your email below mean that you agree to change the revised FLUTE to
version number to 2 at this point?  If so, then I think this would help to
move the revised FLUTE on to the next step in the IETF process, since the
current draft of the revised FLUTE already has the FLUTE version number set
to 2, and thus no changes to the draft would be needed to move the revised
FLUTE to the next step, and as far as I know everyone else who has commented
is on board with making the revised FLUTE be FLUTE version 2 as the
practical path out of the possibilities.  If you meant something else, I
apologize for misinterpreting your email.
Best, Mike


On 5/9/11 4:39 AM, "Rod Walsh" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi all
> 
> It's pretty clear that as a group and individuals we are short of the energy
> and determination to tie-up every loose thread of the RMT adventure. For me,
> the one and only issue preventing FLUTE staying at the sensible and consistent
> v1 status was highlight by Mike...
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rmt/current/msg01513.html
> 
> ...running through all the specs and the multitude of related SDO adoptions
> takes a lot of footwork and singular dedication. I'm am not in such a position
> to do that nowadays. Even running through the maze of security IDs and RFCs to
> get FLUTE-SDP finished has taken months to get done on-the-side.
> 
> So unless we have an energetic and enthusiastic spec miner who is willing to
> take on the task Mike pointed out, then I propose we push forward to a v1.1.
> 
> (just kidding, we should all the way to 1.9 :)
> 
> And thus, with Jani's energy and hard work, I can focus on the finished
> flute-SDP (coming any day now).
> 
> Cheers, Rod.