Subject: [I2nsf] Alvaro Retana's Abstain on draft-ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use-cases-12: (with COMMENT)

From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 11:36:59 -0700

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use-cases-12: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use-cases/

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

[Mirja beat me to the DISCUSS; FWIW, I completely agree that, if
published, this document should not be in the Standards Track.]

Because this document only provides background on the problem space and
some use cases, I don't think it has the long standing value to be
published as an RFC (of any maturity level).   Having a clear
understanding of the problem and of the use cases is important for the
eventual development of a solution, but in this case no specific path is
clearly marked: the language includes a lot of "may be required/need/etc"
not resulting in a strong basis to build a solution.

I know that the i2nsf Charter gave the WG the option to not publish this
document, and that it is being published anyway...so I won't stand in the
way of publication and am ABSTAINing instead.