Andy: + 1 - I feel this type of document does better with group review.
Sue -----Original Message----- From: L3VPN [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Thomas Nadeau Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 2:30 PM To: Andrew G. Malis Cc: Thomas Morin; [email protected]; L3VPN Subject: Re: Poll for adoption: draft-xu-l3vpn-virtual-subnet 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 >
