Thomas, The NVO3 Framework draft is in IETF Last Call, which isn't precisely stalled. It is true that Linda and Lucy have raised some concerns about it.
I have not yet heard from the WG chairs or authors whether the desired changes have been previously discussed and had consensus determined in the WG. Linda indicated that her comments had already been discussed on the nvo3 mailing list. Lucy is requesting that different technology be indicated as examples - perhaps to give a sense of future possible solutions to the readers of the draft. If there is WG consensus to make a few minor edits, that can be done before the IESG review next week. It is on the next telechat, so I would appreciate speed in resolving the minor comment. Regards, Alia On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Thomas Narten <[email protected]> wrote: > I've followed the discussion on this thread and want to go back to > something folk may have forgotten. > > More than a year ago, the WG made a considered and conscious decision > to "ship" the framework documemnt more or less "as is" and start work > on a followup architecure document. It was known and expected that the > architecture document would become the focus of work moving forward > and that substantive additions/changes would go there. Even if it > meant the framework document would be less complete. > > Sadly, it has been more than a year since that decision was made, yet > the framework document appears stalled and unable to get > published. I'll note that the problem statement document to which the > framework is a companion, has been languishing in the RFC editor queue > for almost a year now, blocked on a normative reference to the > definitions in the framework document. > > FWIW, I think the framework is good enough to publish more-or-less as > is. Or more to the point, there just isn't energy to make significant > changes to the document given that the focus of the WG has long since > moved to the architecture document. > > If folk have substantive issues with the framework, I'd strongly > suggest first looking at the architecture > (draft-ietf-nvo3-arch-01.txt) and seeing whether their concern exists > there, and of so, whether the archictecture document would be a better > place to address the concern. > > 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
