Mark Townsley wrote:
Harald Alvestrand wrote:
But I am hard pressed to figure out why such documents belong even in
the vicinity of the IETF standards track.
I'm happy to let these two documents out as Informational. I think
any such document belongs in that class.
They are being targeted for informational. And note the additional
language I included in the IETF LC for these documents:
These documents were a product of first the PPVPN WG, and later the L3VPN
WG. They passed WG Last Call, but have not been actively discussed in the
WG for some time. There is little interest to work on CE-based VPN
problems within the WG today. The L3VPN WG is being rechartered to
reflect
this, and these documents are being advanced as Informational for the
historical record.
I noticed. My beef is mainly with the fact that the L3VPN WG is
apparently going down the path where shipping "standards" that don't
standardize anything is considered a legitimate activity.
If they do a similarly content-free one on (for instance) IPSec-based
PPVPNs, my review of that would also say that it ought to be Info, not
Standards-track; useful, but not a standard.
(for all I know, such a document might already be approved.... I don't
follow that area closely....)
- Mark
But I suspect the political waters here are deep and troubled. I wish
the WG chairs and the ADs the best of luck in navigating them.
No nits worth mentioning.
Harald
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
