At Mon, 2 Jun 2014 14:30:28 -0400, Barry Leiba wrote: > > > If folk have substantive issues with the framework, I'd strongly > > suggest first looking at the architecture > > (draft-ietf-nvo3-arch-01.txt) and seeing whether their concern exists > > there, and of so, whether the archictecture document would be a better > > place to address the concern. > > Does that mean that the working group would be willing to pull the > architecture document back out of the RFC Editor queue for rework, > should it come to that? Not necessary. To clarify, the problem statement document (draft-ietf-nvo3-overlay-problem-statement-04.txt) is in the RFC editor queue. It has a normative dependence on the framework document - it shares common terminology. The architecure document is a relatively new document and is still in the WG and will surely be there for some time. The architecture would be published along with solutions (which the WG isn't even chartered to do yet!) because the architecture and solutions clearly have to very much be in sync. AFAICT, none of discussions in the last year on the framework document would have any impact the problem statement. Thomas