Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use-cases-12: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use-cases/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This document should be informational. I don't see any reason that this document must be cited normatively by all following document of this wg (as indicated in the shepherd write-up) and even if so that does not justify publication as Standards track if the information in the document is only informational. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- As soon as my discuss is resolved I will change to 'Abstain' as I don't see value in the publication of this document. I can see that this document was useful for discussion in the working group but I don't know why it needs to be published as RFC. Also there is quite some redundancy everywhere in the document aa well as between the problem statement and use case part. Spelling out requirements for the protocol design based on the analysis of these problems and use cases (which was already a bit attempted from time to time in the doc) would have been more useful but does still not have an archivable value that justifies publication as RFC in the IETF stream (indicating IETF consensus). _______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
