On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 2:24 PM, Kent Watsen <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Tom, > > > >> Kent, I'm not sure what the context of formal text is. Is this write up >> going > >> to be in an I-D, or is it intended to be published by some other >> mechanism? > > > > That is a good question. At first, we were thinking that is might be an > AD-level > > statement, but I think Spencer last suggested it being put into an I-D that > might > > be published by TVGWG, if the chairs were to support that idea. > Kent,
There's little cost for individuals to create and post Internet-Drafts, and you can always ask later for adoption as a working group item. I think this will be a lot easier to work with once it's in I-D form. Also, that exercise should help to clarify exactly what the intent of this work is. To me, it seems like the intent is to make recommendations on protocol design concerning keepalives, so I believe that is reasonable to target an informational RFC or possibly even a BCP. Tom > > > For now, I'm just pecking away at the text. I figure that how to publish it > > will make more sense the more we know what "it" is. Does that work for > > you? > Thanks. I think this will be easier to work with as draft. I suspect there's also some additional background material on keepalives > > > Kent
