On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Sam Aldrin <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 8:57 AM, Joe Touch <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 10/6/2016 8:34 AM, Sam Aldrin wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 8:13 AM, Joe Touch <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The original email did propose that we continue to evaluate existing
>>> encapsulations, but NOT that they be taken out of the WG and published as
>>> individual informational submissions.
>>>
>> Correct. Call to go independent route lies with authors, not WG, AFAIK.
>>
>> We can't force them to publish as independent, but we do need to decide
>> that we are not proceeding with the docs as WG items or not.
>>
> I do not think anyone is making or forcing a choice for authors.
>

The work is in NVO3.  It is unlikely that work which directly conflicts
with NVO3 could succeed in an Independent Stream submission before the NVO3
WG has published its work.

It isn't clear to me that any of the existing encapsulations would progress
without technical changes through the full IETF review process.


> As mentioned in the email, there were technical objections, which didn't
> help to reach rough consensus by the WG.
> Hence, the plan to have discussion leading to Virtual Interim, so we, as
> WG, could decide on next steps.
>
> If there are *better* steps which could be undertaken to make progress,
> would love to hear them.
>

Absolutely!  I heard quite clearly at the last IETF that there is general
desire for NVO3 to pick a single encapsulation.   While the sentiments on
the list have been more strongly for just publishing everything and
assuming complexity can be handled later, that comes from much less of the
WG than the desire for a single encapsulation.

Regards,
Alia


> -sam
>
>>
>>
>> Joe
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nvo3 mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
>
>
_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3

Reply via email to