Hi, Luigi, On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 4:58 AM, Luigi Iannone <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. Thanks! > > 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? So I was confused because you're using "will only use" to mean "will use, but not dork with", and my first impression was that you meant "will only use solutions/technology developed in other working groups" to mean "and will not use solutions/technology developed outside the IETF, in places such as open source software projects or other SDOs". Your clarification made your meaning much clearer. If this paragraph wasn't the result of weeks of negotiation, perhaps "The LISP Working Group is chartered to work on the LISP technology. It will rely on technologies developed in other working groups, but if it identifies needs for extensions or modifications, those extensions and modifications will be addressed in the working groups that developed those technologies." would be less ambiguous? But I'm sure you folks will do the right thing :-) Spencer p.s. thanks for forwarding the bounce report from huawei.com - for reasons that people are still trying to figure out, the datatracker suddenly decided that my huawei.com mailing address was the right one to use for my AD role, even though I've never used it for that, and haven't been at Huawei since last September!
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
