Hi Paul, On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 4:08 PM Paul Wouters via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> wrote: > > Paul Wouters has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-nvo3-encap-11: Abstain > >... > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 do not have a problem with revising the draft to indicate that it was the conclusion of the WG starting from the output of the Design Team, which I believe is the case, but will await more definitive instructions before embarking on such a broad change. Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA d3e...@gmail.com > I believe the content is worth publishing, but I feel this is a slippery slope > to have design teams write RFCs _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list nvo3@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
