My point is that its not worth adopting as a WG item; instead, it is
more appropriate as a person informational. The question that I am asking (and
I think the other responders to the thread that are not in favor of adoption)
is whether or not it makes sense for the WG (and IETF) to endorse such a
solution. I am happy for this to progress as a personal information draft.
--Tom
On Feb 11, 2014:1:54 PM, at 1:54 PM, Andrew G. Malis <[email protected]> wrote:
> Tom,
>
>> Documentation is fine, but if it comes from a WG isn't it then an endorsed
>> approach unless some language is explicitly added to the draft?
>
> Remember, this poll is for WG adoption, not publication. Once the
> draft has been adopted by the WG, the WG can then add whatever caveat
> language it wishes to the draft so that it's very clear that this
> approach has limitations (already in the last paragraph of section 1
> and all over section 4), the purpose of the draft is to document a
> particular usage of the existing L3VPN protocol set, and that there
> are other standards-based approaches that are/will be standardized by
> the WG.
>
> So I'm in favor of WG adoption, so that the WG can make sure that
> these caveats are clear in the informational draft.
>
> Cheers,
> Andy
>
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
