Based on my experience on both the vendor and operator side, I see some
practical problems with this approach:
- There are some (many?) operators that won’t put drafts into an RFP, only
RFCs.
- There are some (many?) vendors that won’t implement a draft or RFC, no
matter how good the quality,
Adrian,
Thanks.
Please see my reactions in-line.
-m
Le 25/11/2015 01:13, Adrian Farrel a écrit :
Yeah, thanks Martin.
The slide has...
==Raising the bar?==
. Some documents are being pushed to IESG but
without any implementation (plan) to support
them
. We are thinking of "requiring" that
Hi Satya,
Let me thank you for your mail,it is much appreciated.You will take this in to
account in next revision, much appreciated so that all will be in same page.
One more thought though just a random thought.I would like to bring your kind
attention.Since section 7.1 you clearly explains
Hi Jorge,
Let me thank you for the mail. Since this mail thread is for one particular
draft. I think it is good to open a new thread for discussing another draft.
May I request you to give me some time to go through it and I get back.I will
open a new thread for discussing your
Joel, Benson,
hello.
I agree that there has not been a lengthy discussion during the session
but some people reacted to the proposal and expressed their support.
Joel, on the specific point that a discussion in a meeting is
informative, I fully agree, and the point of our e-mail is to
Respected Authors,
I had gone through the draft at high level,I am happy to see a real provider
provisioning issues addressed in your draft. Much appreciated.
Some key highlights in your draft.
1. No changes.
2. Using existing features to address a problem.
3. Addresses provisioning issues.
Folks,
I'm very much om the same page as Andy, having knowledge of
implementations is a good thing. A "requirement" that we have an
implementation before requesting that the document is published as
an RFC is in most cases also good.
The tricky part is when to be flexible. I've asked for
