Hi Joe, On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Joe Touch <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, all, > > I sincerely hope it is never appropriate to act solely on events at an > IETF meeting, but that this is taken only as a first-step to mailing > list coordination. Many people participate online - whether because they > didn't attend the meeting, because they feel more comfortable responding > via text, or because they want more time to consider their response. > Absolutely! IETF consensus decisions are made on the mailing list. It is highly beneficial to have thoughtful and considered discussions. > My view (having not attended) is that there are some significant issues > in developing protocols that both support efficient implementation > (hardware or software) AND are sufficiently flexible. I am not aware of > IETF consensus in any WG on what that entails, which means that coming > up with a solution to satisfy a set of undocumented requirements isn't > going to happen. > > As a consequence, a small set of reasonably distinct encapsulation > designs can and should proceed as either Informational or Experimental > as per the NVO3 charter. > I think that they would go as Informational. There is no experiment here. This would not allow extensions to be easily progressed either. > If and when there is consensus on one of these or a new encapsulation in > the future, they can be reviewed for promotion to standards-track by > revising the RFC through (presumably) another WG. > Indeed. Until then, any standards that might need to refer to encapsulations > should either support negotiation or be encapsulation-agnostic. That > would then allow a standards-track system approach to refer to these > encapsulations non-normatively, avoiding a down-ref problem. > Yes, precisely. Regards, Alia Joe > > >
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
