| Consideration (RFC 7221) / Internet-Draft | coloring-based-ipfpm-framework | twamp-yang | 2330-time | rfc6812-alt-mark-ext | time-format | initial-registry | twamp-light-yang | 2330-stdform-typep | ippm-p3m | monitor-methodology-services-kpi |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| First introduced | 2013-07-07 | 2015-03-09 | 2015-10-13 | 2015-10-19 | 2015-01-16 | 2015-07-06 | 2015-07-06 | 2015-08-06 | 2015-03-05 | 2015-06-29 |
| Last updated | 2016-01-24 | 2015-10-19 | 2015-10-13 | 2015-10-19 | 2016-02-09 | 2016-02-21 | 2016-01-05 | 2015-12-11 | 2015-10-19 | 2015-10-05 |
| Number of revisions | 6 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
| Is there a charter milestone that explicitly calls for such a document? | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No |
| Is the topic of the I-D within scope for the working group? | ? | Yes | Yes | ? | Yes | Yes | ? | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Is the purpose of the draft sufficiently clear? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Does the document provide an acceptable platform for continued effort by the working group? | ||||||||||
| Does the intended status of the document seem reasonable to the working group? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| If not already in scope, is a simple modification to the charter feasible and warranted? | ||||||||||
| Does the draft carry known intellectual property rights issues? | Yes | None Noted | None Noted | Yes | None noted | None noted | None noted | None noted | Yes | Yes |
| Is there strong working group support for working on the draft? | Yes | |||||||||
| Call for adoption issued? | No | Yes | No | No | No | Yes | No | No | No | No |
| Adoption Call Support? | Yes (9 e-mails) | Yes (5 e-mails) | ||||||||
| Discussion on-list? | Yes | Yes | None | Yes | Yes | Yes | None | Yes | Some, although calls for discussion went mostly unanswered | Yes |
The content of this page was last updated on 2016-02-22. It was migrated from the old Trac wiki on 2022-12-14.