On December 5, 2017 at 9:25:39 AM, [email protected] ( [email protected]) wrote:
> > > (2) Document Status > > > Why is this a Standards Track document? The Abstract/Introduction > say > that “this document describes how Ethernet VPN (EVPN) can be used > as an > NVO solution and explores applicability of EVPN functions and > procedures.” -- if it’s just a description (as the text clearly > is), > and not a technical specification, then why it is not > Informational? > I can see how we could call it an Applicability Statement (rfc2026) > and > still publish it in the Standards Track. If we want to go that > way, we > would need some minor updates to make it clear that this is an > Applicability Statement and is not intended to stand in for a > Technical > Specification. I am not clear on the process as it related to > possible > DownRefs (see below), but I’m willing to Last Call an Applicability > Statement in the Standards Track…if that is what you want. > > > Maybe the authors should s/describes/specifies/ to better reflect > the > content of the document. > On the other hand, rfc2026 says "A Technical Specification is any > description of a protocol, service, procedure, convention, or > format." > It seems to match as well. > > > I agree that "specifies" is a better wording for the content of this > document which does specify detailed procedures combining existing > mechanisms. It certainly needs to be Standard Track. > Ok, that’s fine. Alvaro.
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
