Hi, all, I sincerely hope it is never appropriate to act solely on events at an IETF meeting, but that this is taken only as a first-step to mailing list coordination. Many people participate online - whether because they didn't attend the meeting, because they feel more comfortable responding via text, or because they want more time to consider their response.
My view (having not attended) is that there are some significant issues in developing protocols that both support efficient implementation (hardware or software) AND are sufficiently flexible. I am not aware of IETF consensus in any WG on what that entails, which means that coming up with a solution to satisfy a set of undocumented requirements isn't going to happen. As a consequence, a small set of reasonably distinct encapsulation designs can and should proceed as either Informational or Experimental as per the NVO3 charter. If and when there is consensus on one of these or a new encapsulation in the future, they can be reviewed for promotion to standards-track by revising the RFC through (presumably) another WG. Until then, any standards that might need to refer to encapsulations should either support negotiation or be encapsulation-agnostic. That would then allow a standards-track system approach to refer to these encapsulations non-normatively, avoiding a down-ref problem. Joe _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
