Re: Gen-art LC review: draft-mahalingham-dutt-dcops-vxlan-08

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



FWIW, this document should be informational. I'm not sure why the
shepherd writeup went experimental. My recollection of the discussion
within the NVO3 WG was that Informational was the way to go. More
importantly, this document has all the hallmarks of a document that
has traditionally gone out as informational (i.e., it is documenting
something that industry has implemented, and it is being published for
the good of the community).

Also,I object to the following wording in the abstract:

  The IETF consensus on this RFC represents consensus to publish this
  memo, and not consensus on the text itself.

When was it decided that we need to add yet more disclaimers to
informational documents? Has the IESG now decided that all
info/experimental documents need yet another disclaimer in them? If
so, please explain to the community what your new position is and be
consistent in applying it to all documents going forward. I'll note
that looking at a very recent AD-sponsored informational RFC that just
appeared, no such disclaimer appears there.

Thomas





[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]