Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 06:25:17PM +0900, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
Sure, but the majority are mandatory, and don't forget that some of them
are quite large (e.g., "implement RFC 6204"). Also, I believe it's not the
IETF's role to produce vendor requirements documents. The considerations
that the IETF deals with are primarily technical, and "we want this stuff
from our vendors" is not a technical issue.****
*[Med] With all due respect, you are keeping the same argument since the
initial call for adoption and you seem ignore we are not in that stage.
That?s not fair at all.*
I'm just saying it here so that everyone in the community can see it. If
it's an IETF document it has to have IETF consensus, and since I feel that
the arguments were not properly taken into account in the WG (read:
ignored), I think it's important that the community see them before we
publish this document.
+1
Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
I know I'm formally a couple of days late on the WGLC (work!).
I agree with Lorenzo.
And in any case it isn't ready to ship IMHO. e.g. How can REQ#33 and
REQ#34 be enforced by a manufacturer (during compliance testing)?
--
Regards,
RayH