Melinda, My original email indicated that there were other requirements drafts in the works and that it was premature to make draft-narten a WG draft prior to seeing them.
If we really, really, have to have a requirements draft selected as a WG draft immediately, and I have seen no reason expressed for doing this, let alone a compelling reason for doing this, I would propose draft-fang-vpn4dc-problem-statement. It is better written, has a better understanding of the problem space, and has at least a passing familiarity with technologies developed in the IETF and IEEE. Thanks, John Sent from my iPhone >-----Original Message----- >From: Melinda Shore [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 3:36 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 1:48 PM, John E Drake wrote: >> 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.) > >Okay, *that's* the basis for an objection, not that it's too soon >(although I am grateful to have seen a complaint that the IETF is moving >too quickly on something - I may never see another, and I'm cherishing >the moment). > >Look, if the draft is irredeemable or there's a more suitable one >available now, say so. My tendency is to go into these things >recognizing that drafts are changed *substantially* between the time >that one is adopted and the time it enters WG last call, and that's >normal, healthy, and desirable. If an editor is unwilling to accept a >working group decision on something, they're fired. > >I just don't think "too soon" is an acceptable or even reasonable >criterion for not adopting a document and the "too soon" argument is >exceptionally unlikely to lead me to agree with you. You seem to be >suggesting that you want a draft to be close to being able to get into >WG LC before adopting it. Seriously - what is the problem with the >*document* (calling the authors uninformed is not the same thing as >saying that the document is flawed), and why is it so serious as to >preclude adoption by the working group? > >Melinda _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
