Moving forward on VR draft

["Paul Knight" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Thomas,

Your note in the ID tracker
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi)
on the VR draft(s) is:

[Note]: '2004-08-25: draft-ietf-l3vpn-as-vr-01.txt &
draft-ietf-l3vpn-vpn-vr-02.txt go together. Need to better understand
what wording/changes are needed to make clear that these documents are
not a protocol spec from which one can achieve interoperability.
' added by Thomas Narten> [end Note]

As editor of draft-ietf-l3vpn-vpn-vr-02.txt, I had thought we had covered
this by moving the draft to an Informational track instead of Proposed
Standard.

I'll be happy to insert text in the Abstract and/or Introduction of each of
these drafts if it is needed to proceed.  (Working with editor of the
Applicability Statement (AS-VR) to update that one.)

Do you expect that it will be necessary to change the requirements language
(i.e. MUSTs, etc.) within the text of the drafts?

Both drafts were completed before the latest IPR statements were mandated.
Will the IPR statements need to be updated, and other boilerplate items?
I'd like to do all the changes at once to get this finished ASAP.

Regards,
Paul Knight
 
Standards Advisor, Nortel Networks 
Advanced Technology - Strategic Protocols & Standards
[phone]