---- Original Message ----- From: "Alan DeKok" <[email protected]> To: "Warren Kumari" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 8:51 PM
> On Feb 10, 2016, at 3:31 PM, Alan DeKok <[email protected]> wrote: > > There are a host of procedural problems with how the document was adopted. I suggest that the document be withdrawn, and re-submitted as an individual draft. And at some stage in the process, there would be a check on any applicable IPR, which may colour the thinking as to whether or not this is suitable for an IETF Standard. I have yet to see any such claim or declaration yet, given the genesis of this protocol, would be surprised if there were not one. Tom Petch > To be clear: > > 1. the document never had a WG call for adoption as required in Section 4.2.1 of RFC 6174 > > 2. the charter has not been updated to reflect this work. > > 3. the charter says: > > "All new work items and rechartering proposals will be brought for approval with the IESG." > > 4. I can find no record of this approval taking place. If it had taken place, the charter would have been updated. > > 5. I had objected to this in person at the OPSAWG meeting in IETF 94. However, the web site shows no minutes from that meeting: > > https://tools.ietf.org/wg/opsawg/minutes > > 6. I believe that this document is an incorrect technical choice as per section 6.5.1 of RFC 2016. > > As such, I ask the chairs to withdraw the document as a WG document until such time as the procedural issues above have been addressed. > > Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
