Comments inline Sent from my iPhone
>-----Original Message----- >From: Melinda Shore [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 2:31 PM >To: John E Drake >Cc: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [nvo3] call for adoption: draft-narten-nvo3-overlay- >problem-statement-02 > >On 6/21/12 1:22 PM, John E Drake wrote: >> 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? > >It's the one that has been proposed as the basis for the deliverable. >I don't understand why the others weren't, if that was why they were >written. JD: That is completely incorrect. From the charter: "The NVO3 WG will write the following informational RFCs, which must have completed Working Group Last Call before rechartering can be considered: Problem Statement Framework document Control plane requirements document Data plane requirements document Operational Requirements Gap Analysis" > >> JD: When did you decide it was your prerogative to specify the basis >> on which to adopt a draft as a WG draft? > >I'm just trying to understand your objection, to see if there's >something there I can agree with. Part of that is clarifying whether >your complaint is technical or political. JD: Process. Draft-narten was written by a group of people with a particular perspective. In particular, they are blissfully unaware of most of the technologies developed by the IETF over the past fifteen years. (Also technologies developed by the IEEE, but I digress.) Other drafts will be written by groups with other perspectives, and the expectation is that by considering all of these drafts on an *equal* basis, we will have a more complete understanding of the problem space. > >Melinda > _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
