Dino It¹s fine to discuss solutions, indeed we need to discuss solutions and how they meet the requirements and fit with the architecture as input to the gap analysis draft. However, we are not yet in a position to adopt any particular solution until we are rechartered to allow this.
We¹ve prioritised meeting time in the past to ensure that we have sufficient time to cover the requirements / framework drafts, first. The gap analysis draft is intended to provide sufficient information for us to make a choice as to which solutions (if any) we want to take further. Solutions may exist in other working groups or already standardised. However, the gap analysis may identify requirements that are not satisfied by existing protocols. In that case, we may need to develop extensions to existing protocols in the WGs that own those protocols, or if there is no obvious existing home we may take them on in NVO3. Matthew On 16/02/2014 20:16, "Dino Farinacci" <[email protected]> wrote: >At one point I asked the chairs about when it was the right time to talk >about solutions to NVo3's requirements and problem statements. At that >time, the working group was at a stage where it was not ready to talk >about solutions. > >I have seen from recent drafts that solutions have been referenced and >proposals are coming out. Has that policy changed? And are we at a more >advanced stage now? > >And if so, here is a set of questions: > >(1) Has there been a list of solutions that is allowed to be referenced >and others that are not? > >(2) Is the intention to be exhaustive or practically complete? > >(3) Will the working group have their own solution independent of other >solutions that are already in RFC or Internet Draft form? > >Thanks, >Dino >_______________________________________________ >nvo3 mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
