Three quick questions:
(1) Why is this draft intended as standards track? What protocol or standard
does it specify?
Both the problem statement and framework drafts are Informational.
(2) What is the nature of the use of RFC 2119 terms (e.g., "MUST") in this
document?
(3) Why are the security considerations "TBD"? Do the authors really think
that's acceptable?
Also, a 1-week WG LC time period is really short - that will not permit me to
do a thorough technical review of this draft.
Thanks,
--David
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nvo3 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Benson Schliesser
> Sent: Friday, September 12, 2014 5:42 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [nvo3] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-nvo3-vm-mobility-issues
>
> Dear NVO3 Contributors -
>
> This message is to initiate a Working Group Last Call for Comments on draft-
> ietf-nvo3-vm-mobility-issues. The chairs believe there is consensus to submit
> this draft to the IESG for publication. Please review it and provide feedback
> on the mailing list by 19-Sep-2014.
>
> As a reminder, this is not an opportunity to vote. Please do not post messages
> that simply indicate support. Rather, substantial comments and feedback is
> encouraged.
>
> For your convenient reference, the latest version of the draft can be found at
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-nvo3-vm-mobility-issues-03.
>
> Thanks,
> -Benson & Matthew
>
> _______________________________________________
> nvo3 mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
