Comments inline. > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Thomas Narten > Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 12:41 PM > To: John E Drake > Cc: Bocci, Matthew (Matthew); [email protected] > Subject: Re: [nvo3] Consensus call and IPR check on draft-rekhter-nvo3- > vm-mobility-issues-03.txt > > Hi John. > > I read Matthew's note quite carefully. Nowhere does it assert that the > document is in-scope per the charter. Indeed, he carefully side-steps > that question and does not assert it is in scope.
JD: A call for WG adoption does not typically include a statement from the WG chairs as to whether the subject draft is within the scope of the WG's charter. It is up to the WG to decide this. > > By default, I'm opposed to accepting any document as a WG document > where: > > 1) It is not clear how it fits into the charter and broader goals of > the WG. JD: The draft describes the issues associated with VM Mobility. This is clearly within the scope of the charter and addresses the fact that the existing problem statement draft is particularly weak on this topic. > > 2) It is unclear how it relates to other existing documents with > overlapping material. JD: Matthew's note was asking the WG's opinion on this question. > > 3) It is not clear what the intention and scope of the final document > is that the WG is developing with the intention of sending to the IESG. > I.e., the WG should first say "we need a document of type X that covers > X, Y, and Z". Given such an understanding, one can ask whether a > candidate document is a good starting point. Adopting a document > first, and then figuring out what it needs to contain second is > backwards process. JD: You are mischaracterizing Matthew's note, which is asking the WG's opinion as to whether the draft should be a standalone document or whether its material should be incorporated into another document. > > BTW, this is my general view on WG documents. It is not NVO3 specific > and is not a reflection on the particular document under discussion. We > will likely need to have the same discussion about other documents that > folk are asking the WG to adopt. > > Thomas > > _______________________________________________ > nvo3 mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
