Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization-15: Abstain
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank to you Roni Even for the GENART review. I support the DISCUSS position of Gunter Van de Velde Appreciating that RFC6291 is a BCP and this document updating it, the purpose of this document isn’t clear. The use of the BCP status is also unclear beyond this being needed to update RFC6291. This document appears to define a series of terms which don’t apply retroactively to previously published RFCs. The text suggests these terms can be used in future documents. From the perspective of conformance, use of these terms doesn’t appear to be required as terms as “recommended” is the strength of the guidance. It seems like all “future OAM documents” would be “conformant to the BCP”. _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
