Robert, thanks for your review. I initially had the same reaction. But then digging a little more into the TAPS document set and charter I started having the opposite question, which is that if the minimal service set is meant to be constraining on transport systems, why shouldn’t it be standardized rather than informational? I have put that question in my DISCUSS ballot.
Alissa > On Sep 6, 2018, at 4:07 PM, Robert Sparks <[email protected]> wrote: > > Reviewer: Robert Sparks > Review result: Ready > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your > document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-taps-minset-08 > Reviewer: Robert Sparks > Review Date: 2018-09-06 > IETF LC End Date: 2018-09-04 > IESG Telechat date: 2018-09-13 > > Summary: Ready for publication as an Informational RFC > > (Repeating one thing from my Last Call review for the benefit of the IESG): > > This was a big effort, and it appears that it was helpful to the folks > working on the interface document, but it's not clear how it will be > useful to implementers. The IESG should consider whether this, like > requirements documents, needs to be in the RFC series. The most likely > use I can see in the future would be for historians, and a different > and shorter presentation would serve them better. > > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art _______________________________________________ Taps mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
