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