Hi Roman,
As document shepherd for this document, let me observe that
"This document appears to define a series of terms which don’t apply
retroactively to previously published RFCs. " -> this is exactly because
the terms have not been used consistently throughout the WGs that we
need such as document. Note: I am not trying to convince you to change
your ABSTAIN. Regards, Benoit
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 tohttps://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]
