Comments inline.

Sent from my iPhone

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
>Melinda Shore
>Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 1:16 PM
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: [nvo3] call for adoption: draft-narten-nvo3-overlay-
>problem-statement-02
>
>On 6/21/12 2:51 AM, John E Drake wrote:
>> The WG has yet to have its first meeting and we have yet to see the
>> drafts which will be presented at it.  Generally, requirements and
>> framework drafts adopted by the WG as WG drafts are a synthesis of
>> many individual drafts,
>
>???  Generally, I don't think so.  From time to time, to be sure, but
>"generally?"  No.

JD:  I'm sorry, 'generally' is within the context of the Routing Area, going 
back to the early days of MPLS.

>
>At any rate I think this draft is a very good starting point and it
>seems to me that unless there are *specific* reasons related to content
>or structure not to adopt the draft, I don't see a reason not to.

JD:    I disagree.  Other requirements drafts, e.g., 
draft-fang-vpn4dc-problem-statement, have been published and others are in the 
works.  What is so special about draft-narten?

>Progressing a working group draft is a collaborative process and one, I
>think, that seems healthier and more likely to be able to result in a
>consensus to publish than having what's been referred to elsewhere as a
>"contest of champions."

JD:  I expect a multiplicity of requirements and framework drafts that will be 
synthesized into a single requirements and a single framework draft as the WG 
proceeds.  After a time, these will be adopted as WG drafts.

>
>Do you have reasons to not want to adopt that have something to do with
>content?

JD:  When did you decide it was your prerogative to specify the basis on which 
to adopt a draft as a WG draft?

>
>Melinda
>_______________________________________________
>nvo3 mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3

Reply via email to