Hi Matthew,
I support this being a WG document. IANAL. I don't understand the process by which an author who previously said "no derivative works" for an I-D is able to relax that constraint in a new revision. Maybe simply posting a new revision without the constraint is enough. Maybe the constraint on the old versions still applies. Would be neat to get an opinion from the Trust or IETF Counsel. Cheers, Adrian From: BESS <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Matthew Bocci (Nokia) Sent: 05 October 2023 11:45 To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: [bess] WG Adoption Poll for draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-uasge-16 WG This email starts a one-week WG adoption poll for draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-uasge-16 [1] A little bit of history: A previous version was adopted, completed WG last call, and publication requested as an Informational RFC. v15 of this draft was reviewed by the IESG and found to have a restrictive clause in the boilerplate. This has now been removed, but since that clause was inconsistent with the draft having been adopted as a WG document in the first place, we have been asked to go through the process again. Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS mailing list. This poll will close on Thursday 12th October. Regards Matthew [1] draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-16 - SD-WAN edge nodes are commonly interconnected by multiple types of underlay networks owned and managed by different network providers. <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage/16/>
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
