(Resend with the right address for Alvaro.)
Even if the WG concluded it did not want to address some of the issues
from by Routing Directorate review, I would have expected a revision to
address the lesser issues that had been agreed to, before the IESG could
vote on the document.
Yours,
Joel
On 5/18/18 4:24 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Alissa,
"On agenda of 2018-05-24 IESG telechat" surprises me. I thought
a -14 version was the next step.
I'll repeat my opinion on the reference issue, being a co-author
of the reference model (draft-ietf-anima-reference-model). We
never expected that to be treated as a normative reference. While
it definitely provides useful background for the ACP draft, I
don't see it as being required reading for a correct implementation.
Regards
Brian
On 19/05/2018 05:08, Alissa Cooper wrote:
Hi,
I was wondering if any response to Elwyn’s review besides Brian’s is
forthcoming and if so when the authors or shepherd expect to send it.
Thanks,
Alissa
On Apr 18, 2018, at 8:50 PM, Toerless Eckert <[email protected]> wrote:
Sorry, trying to get through backlog. Took longer than expected...
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 01:04:53AM +0100, Elwyn Davies wrote:
Hi.
It has been about 6 weeks since responses to the review were postponed till
after IETF 101.... any thoughts yet?
Regards,Elwyn
Sent from Samsung tablet.
-------- Original message --------From: Elwyn Davies <[email protected]> Date:
02/03/2018 12:04 (GMT+00:00) To: Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]>,
[email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re:
[Gen-art] Gen-art LC Review of
draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane-13
Just taking up one point for the time being....
Even if the reference model is informational, I was relying on RFC 8067, s1,
para 3:
Section 2 of [RFC3967] lists some conditions under which downrefs may
make sense. In addition to those, it has become common for working
groups to produce foundational documents (which contain important
information such as terminology definitions and architectural design
and considerations) at Informational status, and those documents are
often needed as normative references in the Standards Track protocol
documents that follow.
I would say that sombody implementing ACP really needs to have read and
understood the reference model and so I would argue:1. That it needs to be
normative,and2. The downref is sanctioned by the language in RFC 8067.
I am on holiday for a week and others are fighting the draft deadline so
perhaps we can postpone discussion of the other points until the draft panic
has subsided.
Cheers,Elwyn
Sent from Samsung tablet.
--
---
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
