Paul Wouters has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-nvo3-encap-11: Abstain
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nvo3-encap/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I also believe that a Design Team's output consists of only input to the WG. So I would be okay if the document mentions that work was done via a design team, but that the text should be updated to replace all current tense occurrences of the DT to either "WG" or some other kind of generalized phrasing. The shepherds review states there was strong WG consensus on this document, so why not make this WG document come from the WG properly, and perhaps have a single section mentioning/crediting the work(flow) of the Design Team? I believe the content is worth publishing, but I feel this is a slippery slope to have design teams write RFCs _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list nvo3@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
