If I might offer an opinion here ... On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 9:26 AM Behcet Sarikaya <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 8:03 PM Black, David <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > #. It does not seem as if the NVO WG has discussed the purpose of >> using normative text in this draft. See detailed comments. >> >> >> >> > [Linda] The “Intended status” of the draft is “Best Current Practice”. >> So all the text are not “normative”. Is it Okay? >> >> >> >> Not really – this draft might be better targeted as “Informational” as it >> is not a comprehensive review of current practice (best or otherwise) nor >> an overall set of recommendations, e.g., as Bob wrote “it just asserts what >> appears to be one view of how a whole VM Mobility system works.” >> >> >> > > > At present we have no intention of changing the intended status because > that decision should be deferred until IESG Review where we expect to > receive an authoritative view. > Right - this is pretty clear in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-6.1.2. The IESG is supposed to make sure the status coming out makes sense, whether the intended status going in made sense or not. Having said that, I would encourage people to take their best shot at recommending the intended status going into IESG Review, because having 15 people who haven't thought about the intended status as much as other people should have, trying to figure that out during a telechat week makes more sense if the document comes in with an obviously inappropriate intended status - if you can send a document with an appropriate intended status, the document is more likely to come out with the right status, in my experience. Do the right thing, of course! Spencer
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
