Folks,
I read the draft and think it is a good start to address a real
problem.
I support making this a working group document.
There are some things that can be addressed during the normal
wg process, e.g. I would like to make the requirements easily
identifiable (e.g. RFC 5654 number the requirements), 5654 also clearly
separate explanatory text and requirement text.
The structure of the document need to be reviewed, at least updating
the section numbering.
I think RFC 2119 needs to be a normative reference.
/Loa
On 2014-09-05 15:50, Thomas Morin wrote:
Hello working group,
This email starts a two-week poll on adopting
draft-fang-l3vpn-end-system-requirements [1] as a working group item.
Please send comments to the list and state if you support adoption or
not (in the later case, please also state the reasons).
This poll runs until **September 19th**.
*Coincidentally*, we are also polling for knowledge of any IPR that
applies to this draft, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in
compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669
and 5378 for more details).
==> *If you are listed as a document author or contributor* please
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any
relevant IPR.
The draft will not be adopted until a response has been received from
each author and contributor.
If you are on the L3VPN WG mailing list but are not listed as an author
or contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of
any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules.
Thank you,
Martin & Thomas
l3vpn chairs
[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fang-l3vpn-end-system-requirements-03
--
Loa Andersson email: [email protected]
Senior MPLS Expert [email protected]
Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64
