Hi All,
So while it looks like the document referenced in the subject line will not have sufficient ballot positions to pass the IESG tonight, I’m also extremely cognizant of the comments received and the feedback I’ve had around this document, which has honestly got me questioning returning this document to the working group – that being said – I do think that it may be possible to remedy this document before such a step is taken. My question to the working group – stems from other feedback that I’ve had. Section 3.2 – Typically scalability requirements (especially non-normative SHOULDs) are not normally in a standards track document – is this section really necessary? Section 3.3 – (As per the comment from Erik Kline) – there is a question about the MUST here, and if this could not be a should, to avoid potential inter-op issues and limitations of implementation between vendors. Section 3.4 – These seem to be service descriptions – rather than actual requirements. Further to this, and it goes back to the definitions section, things like the term EVC stem from MEF documents, would it not be useful to reference these? Section 3.5 – R5a seems to be more a service description than a requirement All these sections are sub-sections of a section entitled requirements, and none of them seem to meet the definition of requirements. There is a question as to if this document should be standards-track or if it should be an informational document. While John Scudder has abstained from balloting – he raises several serious concerns that I also believe are potentially discussable positions – that show serious issues with the document. My question to the working group, in general, is – looking at the current ballot positions – and the comments on the document, does the working group feel that these issues can be resolved in such a way as to not trigger another working group last call – if not – I have no option but to return the document to the working group for serious revision. Effectively, in looking at the comments and John’s abstention ballot – if the issues are addressed would they change the document in sufficiently fundamental ways to cause people in the working group to believe this needs to go through an additional last call? As of right now though, based on the feedback, I am not sure that I am comfortable progressing this document. I look forward to the working group's feedback Thanks Andrew Internal All Employees
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
