On 24/04/2012 21:04, Adrian Farrel wrote:
The NVO3 WG will write the following informational RFCs, which
must be substantially complete before rechartering can be
considered:
"substantially complete" is sufficiently subjective to risk a riot at some point
in the future!
Can we be more precise with some well-known process step such as WG last call or
publication request.
I do not believe that rechartering at that point would take more than a couple
of weeks, so it is not as though the WG will grind to a halt for a season.
Problem Statement
Framework document
Control plane requirements document
Data plane requirements document
Operational Requirements
Gap Analysis
Perhaps we should set WGLC as the marker for recharter to be considered.
I see how the three requirements documents have been arrived at from the text in
the previous paragraphs. Where does Security fit in? Is it distributed amongst
the three documents? If so, why were operational requirements not similarly
distributed?
It's always difficult to design the document structure during chartering.
I think that we need to give the WG the flexibility to add documents that
are within charter, or to merge documents as they think fit when they
analyze the work in detail.
Driven by the requirements and consistent with the gap analysis,
the NVO3 WG may request being rechartered to document solutions
consisting of one or more data plane encapsulations and
control plane protocols as applicable. Any documented solutions
will use existing IETF protocols if suitable. Otherwise,
the NVO3 WG may propose the development of new IETF protocols,
or the writing of an applicability statement for a non-IETF
protocol.
s/a non-IETF protocol/non-IETF protocols/
[snip]
Thanks,
Adrian
I think that we should accept all nit level proposals.
Stewart