Hi Spencer, thanks for your comments. A couple of answers inline.
ciao Luigi > On 21 Apr 2016, at 07:02, Spencer Dawkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for > charter-ietf-lisp-03-01: Yes > > 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.) > > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-lisp/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I'm a Yes, with a couple of comments. > > I don't think > > "Documents of these work items will as well target standard-track unless > the main content of the document itself clearly demands for a different > type (e.g., informational or experimental). In the latter case the > Working Group needs to determine the proper document class." > > is quite right. My understanding is that "determining the proper document > class" is an IESG responsibility in RFC 2026 (which calls this > "publication category"): > > The IESG is not bound by the action recommended when the > specification was submitted. For example, the IESG may decide to > consider the specification for publication in a different category > than that requested. > > The fix would be simple enough: > > "In the latter case the Working Group needs to determine the recommended > ^^^^^^^^^^^ > document class.” > Certainly we can swap “proper” with “recommended”. Thanks for the suggestion. > I didn't understand this: > > "The LISP Working Group is chartered to work on the LISP technology, and > only use solutions/technology developed in other working groups." > > Is it saying that the LISP working group will not modify or extend > solutions/technology developed in other working groups? Yes that is the point. As stated in the charter LISP WG may touch technology developed in other WGs (e.g. PIM, NVO3, DMM, SFC). People that participate to the LISP WG can propose extensions/modifications but the will be (rightfully) discussed in the WG where the technology in object has been defined/developed. Does it make sense? ciao L. > Or is something > else going on here? > > _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
