Matthew and Benson, I would like to get a clarification from you. Have you with Chair head decided single gap analysis draft (of course, this is the draft) for the WG or not?
In IETF 87, you expressed that this draft may serve as a scorecard draft for the gap analysis and expect some individual solution related gap analysis WG drafts as well. During this adoption process, some are in favor of one single gap analysis WG document, some like to see more. Since this process is very governed by the chairs. It is necessary for you to clarify on that, so people can work toward to the same and clear goal. Cheers/Regards, Lucy From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bocci, Matthew (Matthew) Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 8:40 AM To: Bocci, Matthew (Matthew); [email protected] Subject: [nvo3] Conclusion of poll for adoption and IPR check: draft-gbclt-nvo3-gap-analysis-00.txt This email concludes the adoption poll for this draft. The chairs believe that there is sufficient consensus that the draft should be adopted, and that the basic approach that it takes to the gap analysis is reasonable. Please can the authors upload a new version, with the content as-is, and the draft name changed to draft-ietf-nvo3-gap-analysis-00.txt. However, there were some comments and discussion around the candidate technologies, and where they fit (control plane, data plane etc) in the draft. Please can the authors address these comments in a subsequent revision (v01) of the WG draft as soon as possible. Regards Mathew and Benson. On 06/09/2013 14:57, "Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: This email begins a two week poll to help the chairs judge if there is consensus to adopt draft-gbclt-nvo3-gap-analysis-00.txt as an NVO3 working group draft. Please respond to this email on the list with 'support' or 'do not support'. Please also send any comments on the draft to the NVO3 list. Please consider whether this draft takes the right basic approach to a gap analysis, and is a good basis for the work going forward (and potential future rechartering). It does not have to be perfect at this stage. Coincidentally, we are also polling for knowledge of any IPR that applies to this draft, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond to this email whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. The draft will not be adopted until a response has been received from each author and contributor. If you are on the NVO3 WG email list but are not listed as an author or contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. This poll closes on Friday 20th September. Regards Matthew and Benson
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
