Since I put this into IETF LC On 21/03/2014 11:46, Thomas Narten wrote:
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).
It has always been experimental. I should have picked this up. I am not sure why, but I assume that this is to do with its relationship to LISP which is also experimental.
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
At the time when I was getting this ready for the IESG, there was a strong view by the IESG that the IETF stream should not be used to publish this type of document, i.e. that this type of draft should go to the ISE. The view was that there were far too many AD sponsored drafts. There was also a strong view expressed to me that the concept of IETF consensus (necessary for AD sponsorship) was inappropriate if the IETF could not change the technical solution, which it could not do if the document was describing an existing deployed system. The text that Thomas refers to was intended to note the scope of the consensus being sought - i.e. consensus to publish, and to defuse the ongoing push back at continuing to publish this type of draft in the IETF stream. Of course the new sponsoring AD and the new IESG may take a different view. - Stewart