WG There was a discussion in the NVO3 WG meeting in Berlin following strong advice from our Area Director that we need to come to a consensus on converging on a common encapsulation. Two sets of questions were asked: (1) Should the WG move forward with one standards track encap? (2) For a given encap, do you have significant technical objections?
This email relates to the first of these questions. Please refer to the separate email titled “Consensus call on encap proposals” for discussion related to point (2). We would recommend that those not familiar with RFC 7282 "On Consensus and Humming in the IETF" may wish to read it for a fuller understanding of how the IETF handles challenging consensus decisions and why. We took a sense of the room as to how many people thought that we should move forward with one encapsulation on the standards track (we also clarified that this did not mean preventing other encapsulations from being published as informational or experimental). There was strong support in the room for selecting one encapsulation. We would like to repeat that question to determine and make a consensus call now on the mailing list. Please DO NOT use this thread to argue or debate the importance or details of any technical objections that arise. That can be done in other threads. Any objections raised will be summarized in an additional email at the end of this consensus call so that the WG can discuss the results in detail. Please respond to this email on the NVO3 list by 29th July 2016: - Given the IETF's mission, should NVO3 move forward on the standards track with a single encapsulation on the standards track? If not, please explain your concern in detail. Regards Matthew and Sam _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
