Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 06:25:17PM +0900, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: >>> Sure, but the majority are mandatory, and don't forget that some of them >>> are quite large (e.g., "implement RFC 6204"). Also, I believe it's not the >>> IETF's role to produce vendor requirements documents. The considerations >>> that the IETF deals with are primarily technical, and "we want this stuff >>> from our vendors" is not a technical issue.**** >>> >>> *[Med] With all due respect, you are keeping the same argument since the >>> initial call for adoption and you seem ignore we are not in that stage. >>> That?s not fair at all.* >>> >> I'm just saying it here so that everyone in the community can see it. If >> it's an IETF document it has to have IETF consensus, and since I feel that >> the arguments were not properly taken into account in the WG (read: >> ignored), I think it's important that the community see them before we >> publish this document. > > +1 > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster I know I'm formally a couple of days late on the WGLC (work!). I agree with Lorenzo. And in any case it isn't ready to ship IMHO. e.g. How can REQ#33 and REQ#34 be enforced by a manufacturer (during compliance testing)? -- Regards, RayH