| Re: [m2m-iwg] Draft press release |
Yes, let's discuss it during tomorrow's call. The "framework" at the end was on purpose but I agree that looks confusing (at least for people like us who have the previous version in mind :)). Benjamin ________________________________________________________________________ De : Scott de Deugd <dedeugd@xxxxxxxxxx> Répondre à : m2m Industry Working Group <m2m-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx> À : m2m Industry Working Group <m2m-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx> Objet : Re: [m2m-iwg] Draft press release Benjamin, maybe we could discuss on tomorrow's call. ......................Scott From: T-Rob/Charlotte/IBM@IBMUS To: m2m Industry Working Group <m2m-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: 05/14/2012 01:48 PM Subject: Re: [m2m-iwg] Draft press release Sent by: m2m-iwg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx In the second bullet, "framework" was replaced with "model" in all but the last instance. Was that last instance intentionally not changed? -- T.Rob T.Robert Wyatt
From: Benjamin Cabé <bcabe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: m2m Industry Working Group <m2m-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Date: 05/14/2012 01:20 PM Subject: Re: [m2m-iwg] Draft press release Sent by: m2m-iwg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx Ian, all, The draft really is looking good, thanks for your work on this Ian! I have attached an updated version with a few tweaks to try to introduce the M2M model notion, and how it enables the creation of a larger M2M framework. As discussed during some of the marketecture calls, our concern was that talking about an "M2M framework" upfront might be a bit too vague. The reworded second bullet point hopefuly clarify what the m2m framework is actually made of… Regards, Benjamin. ________________________________________________________________________
|
