[Gen-art] Re: Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-l3vpn-ce-based-03.txt

Mark Townsley wrote:
> Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>>
>> But I am hard pressed to figure out why such documents belong even in 
>> the vicinity of the IETF standards track.
>> I'm happy to let these two documents out as Informational. I think 
>> any such document belongs in that class.
> They are being targeted for informational. And note the additional 
> language I included in the IETF LC for these documents:
>
> These documents were a product of first the PPVPN WG, and later the L3VPN
> WG. They passed WG Last Call, but have not been actively discussed in the
> WG for some time. There is little interest to work on CE-based VPN
> problems within the WG today. The L3VPN WG is being rechartered to 
> reflect
> this, and these documents are being advanced as Informational for the
> historical record.
I noticed. My beef is mainly with the fact that the L3VPN WG is 
apparently going down the path where shipping "standards" that don't 
standardize anything is considered a legitimate activity.

If they do a similarly content-free one on (for instance) IPSec-based 
PPVPNs, my review of that would also say that it ought to be Info, not 
Standards-track; useful, but not a standard.

(for all I know, such a document might already be approved.... I don't 
follow that area closely....)
>
> - Mark
>>
>> But I suspect the political waters here are deep and troubled. I wish 
>> the WG chairs and the ADs the best of luck in navigating them.
>>
>> No nits worth mentioning.
>>
>>                          Harald
>>
>>

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art