Barry, > Does that mean that the working group would be willing to pull the > architecture document back out of the RFC Editor queue for rework, > should it come to that?
There appears to be some confusion here: The nvo3 architecture draft is not in RFC Editor queue, it's still with the WG: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nvo3-arch/ The nvo3 problem statement draft is in the RFC Editor queue: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nvo3-overlay-problem-statement/ I haven't seen anything in this discussion that suggests pulling the latter draft back from the RFC Editor. Thanks, --David (co-author of both of the above drafts) > -----Original Message----- > From: nvo3 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba > Sent: Monday, June 02, 2014 2:30 PM > To: Thomas Narten > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Linda Dunbar > Subject: Re: [nvo3] Last Call: <draft-ietf-nvo3-framework-06.txt> (Framework > for DC Network Virtualization) to Informational RFC > > > If folk have substantive issues with the framework, I'd strongly > > suggest first looking at the architecture > > (draft-ietf-nvo3-arch-01.txt) and seeing whether their concern exists > > there, and of so, whether the archictecture document would be a better > > place to address the concern. > > Does that mean that the working group would be willing to pull the > architecture document back out of the RFC Editor queue for rework, > should it come to that? > > Barry > > _______________________________________________ > nvo3 mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
