Re: [nvo3] Consensus call and IPR check on draft-rekhter-nvo3-vm-mobility-issues-03.txt

[Thomas Narten <[e-mail]>]

Chairs, WG:

I would like to better understand what the "end goal" is in asking for
WG adoption of vm-mobility. By adopting the document, there is a
strong presumption the WG will (eventually) send it to the IESG for
publication.

Strictly speaking, it is not at all obvious to me which charter item
deliverable vm-mobility applies to (it certainly isn't one of the 6
listed in the charter).  I think it takes a pretty broad reading of
the charter to say this document is "in scope". I have the concern
that such a reading implies that a whole lot of other "related"
documents will also then have to be taken on as WG documents. This
could easily lead to a plethora of documents.

Before adopting this (or other documents) I think the WG should get a
little more clear about what types of documents the WG will adopt
going forward and which it will not.  What is the criteria? Will we
take on anything the WG says we should adopt, regardless of what the
charter says, and regardless of overlap among drafts?

That said, I do think there is useful stuff in this document, but that
is also the case for other non-WG documents.  With regards to the
document itself, there are other documents that relate to the same
general topic, including (at least):

       draft-kompella-nvo3-server2nve-01.txt
       draft-gu-nvo3-tes-nve-mechanism-01.txt

Is the intention to merge the above into vm-mobility? Or to have yet
more documents that cover similar ground? And if the intention is to
merge them, wouldn't it be better to start with that upfront, before
adopting one document as a WG document? 

Generally speaking, I share Joel's concern that having more documents
is not necessary a good thing, especially when a lot of them end up
repeating some of the same material.

Thomas