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