Re: [LOOPS] Results of the LOOPS side meeting May 2020

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

Hi Med,

> (1) I suggest we simply go for: s/network structures/networks

Done.

> (2) I'd like to be explicit that "multipath" may be a future work. It would be cool if we can add the following to that part: "and is left for future consideration."

Done.  I expect IESG to revert this forward-looking statement, but it sure helps to state our intention for now.

> (3) The opportunities doc will be an output of the WG. What we need to discuss as per (https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/support-documents/) is whether we plan to publish it as an RFC. I suggest to make at least this change:
> 
> s/as an output of the WG/as an RFC.

Done.

> We can even have an explicit text saying that the WG will decide that in due time.

(Yes, but probably not charter-worthy.)

> (4) I suggested to make this change "s/LOOPS specification/LOOPS specification(s)" because I'm not sure yet if we can go for one single spec or have a core spec + Encap option spec. 

So I made this a bit more explicit:

The main deliverable will be a LOOPS specification (one or split
between two documents, to be decided by the WG).

And I changed the milestone to

* LOOPS specification, WG document(s) adopted, October 2020

Thank you!

Grüße, Carsten