[nvo3] Paul Wouters' Abstain on draft-ietf-nvo3-encap-11: (with COMMENT)

[Paul Wouters via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Paul Wouters has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-nvo3-encap-11: Abstain

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nvo3-encap/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I also believe that a Design Team's output consists of only input to the WG. So
I would be okay if the document mentions that work was done via a design team,
but that the text should be updated to replace all current tense occurrences of
the DT to either "WG" or some other kind of generalized phrasing. The shepherds
review states there was strong WG consensus on this document, so why not make
this WG document come from the WG properly, and perhaps have a single section
mentioning/crediting the work(flow) of the Design Team?

I believe the content is worth publishing, but I feel this is a slippery slope
to have design teams write RFCs