Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-xmpp-posh-04.txt

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 2/25/15 12:59 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
> I think this version looks good to go to the IESG.
> 
> In my chair opinion, the changes in this version are not 
> substantial enough to require a new WGLC (and have been published 
> on the list.) Do the authors agree?
> 

I agree.

> It occurs to me to wonder if we should submit posh and DNA 
> (currently in WGLC) together as a package, or submit them 
> separately as they are ready. Thoughts?
> 

Personally, I think it's fine to submit POSH before DNA.  DNA has
normative dependencies on POSH, but not the reverse.

What does our AD think?


- -- 
- - m&m

Matt Miller < [email protected] >
Cisco Systems, Inc.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJU7ixkAAoJEDWi+S0W7cO1ZX4IAKFU7UOehhUTZcEOkXCieHfK
K8RJYhvmwjE2bMtLpQ+DQumkBHZDg0jcIVGdqyqNaSurArORcs4XAvxAVD6bNs/6
CXhjExXKG+kcIt8lxFWo7SsoJMNOzTFfSKV6dVkqrGx7Kr6XBZTmTd4udV2WI8ad
x9uqxwaUlrMfm4wk7iAXr5tAV/D6iIBZ0p9oO/htBgwtlwmWwol27tJtq/CvMP4G
UHZ+Ca3cX0Ai+IxZJmfAO1cESDTCCHEwIBuqB/9HOWTtV+2MQGCDsx6wcmGRKzKu
ncqF25zlhEwk0LbIBsI+s1Fx3muMw9uyA6+X+AOx9A/BFrq9URyHWLUvDvxMwzo=
=W662
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----