ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Gen-art LC review: draft-mahalingham-dutt-dcops-vxlan-08

2014-03-21 07:10:38
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