Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-nvo3-vmm-04

Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net> Tue, 18 September 2018 23:12 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>
X-Original-To: tsv-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsv-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA770130EB8; Tue, 18 Sep 2018 16:12:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=bobbriscoe.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PDqD5HsaIvqP; Tue, 18 Sep 2018 16:12:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server.dnsblock1.com (server.dnsblock1.com [85.13.236.178]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC74B130EB5; Tue, 18 Sep 2018 16:12:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bobbriscoe.net; s=default; h=Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date: Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=6RrYcXANKCehgcIy8CSgQhLrV5KBSlQBTLuUo6WNn58=; b=V25ge6kkGSnRuAO60iEfHXOuV 4lUleAv7ofvbgy+2rSMdv9js3fs6H0HwJP70XidbqllG33ti15AB9ywnWAMM5tFconB8f0uNCeBDe 7sk5EQ1KmcN8Q2mUUyyp9i9i7+mezfe3iZ9gfXAaBL0h8ni6xTNha6py0gMZslb9d1I7uTlOSkpB9 0TuTzEI0FwmdmvN+uhvN6i9Uk3MwjFGlsgG0lQVVbnlBHmTjuoTtyZLkMts1+CODpkFvFhE2iX7FC AohWuGbsc9GXf5Vjlq1wjqyqu8FzvuJPCRo9hyF4hfpZoWr3H68waD6yuhg/M+SNPWAxZ4V/qrmA9 SYZyTSxlA==;
Received: from 188.74.9.51.dyn.plus.net ([51.9.74.188]:43268 helo=[192.168.0.7]) by server.dnsblock1.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.91) (envelope-from <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>) id 1g2PAJ-0002SK-Nh; Wed, 19 Sep 2018 00:12:19 +0100
To: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya@ieee.org>
Cc: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>, IETF list <ietf@ietf.org>, nvo3@ietf.org, Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@huawei.com>, "Black, David" <David.Black@dell.com>, tsv-art@ietf.org, draft-ietf-nvo3-vmm.all@ietf.org
References: <153602909285.13281.13763046029400746910@ietfa.amsl.com> <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F66B139743@sjceml521-mbs.china.huawei.com> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D2432779493630287A13@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com> <CAC8QAcc=BxW8Zd3u7Ko8rWXemJ-XiL7uU8Gt-ZVyEEMAqd3G9g@mail.gmail.com> <CAKKJt-cnM1VJ7xDcZ4-tcxSxooR++Cu+dQS0Hd+N_9M7SP-9Eg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>
Message-ID: <a3d9be06-2b89-0dd5-952e-d5f52ff5d070@bobbriscoe.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 00:12:18 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKKJt-cnM1VJ7xDcZ4-tcxSxooR++Cu+dQS0Hd+N_9M7SP-9Eg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------A2754A0190B44CA4D04E3D85"
Content-Language: en-GB
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server.dnsblock1.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - bobbriscoe.net
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server.dnsblock1.com: authenticated_id: in@bobbriscoe.net
X-Authenticated-Sender: server.dnsblock1.com: in@bobbriscoe.net
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/b5ejN_hUI2CnS_Hee1TGb0h1bj0>
Subject: Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-nvo3-vmm-04
X-BeenThere: tsv-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Review Team <tsv-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsv-art>, <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsv-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsv-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art>, <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 23:12:24 -0000

Behcet,

In my experience, if you have to change the intended status of a draft, 
you need to make significant changes to the text and often to the whole 
structure of the draft. So it's very painful if the intended status 
changes right near the end of the process, and therefore preferable by 
far to get consensus on what the intended status should be when the 
draft is first adopted by the WG.



Bob

On 14/09/18 15:51, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
> If I might offer an opinion here ...
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 9:26 AM Behcet Sarikaya 
> <sarikaya2012@gmail.com <mailto:sarikaya2012@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
>     On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 8:03 PM Black, David <David.Black@dell.com
>     <mailto:David.Black@dell.com>> wrote:
>
>         > #. It does not seem as if the NVO WG has discussed the
>         purpose of using normative text in this draft. See detailed
>         comments.
>
>         > [Linda] The “Intended status” of the draft is “Best Current
>         Practice”. So all the text are not “normative”. Is it Okay?
>
>         Not really – this draft might be better targeted as
>         “Informational” as it is not a comprehensive review of current
>         practice (best or otherwise) nor an overall set of
>         recommendations, e.g., as Bob wrote “it just asserts what
>         appears to be one view of how a whole VM Mobility system works.”
>
>
>
>     At present we have no intention of changing the intended status
>     because that decision should be deferred until IESG Review where
>     we expect to receive an authoritative view.
>
>
> Right -  this is pretty clear in 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-6.1.2. The IESG is 
> supposed to make sure the status coming out makes sense, whether the 
> intended status going in made sense or not.
>
> Having said that, I would encourage people to take their best shot at 
> recommending the intended status going into IESG Review, because 
> having 15 people who haven't thought about the intended status as much 
> as other people should have, trying to figure that out during a 
> telechat week makes more sense if the document comes in with an 
> obviously inappropriate intended status - if you can send a document 
> with an appropriate intended status, the document is more likely to 
> come out with the right status, in my experience.
>
> Do the right thing, of course!
>
> Spencer
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tsv-art mailing list
> Tsv-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art

-- 
________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe                               http://bobbriscoe.net/