Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis: PS or DS?

[Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>]

On 9/4/11 2:05 PM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> Ned Freed wrote:
>
>>> RFC3462 is currently DS.  There's some question as to whether or not 
>>> this
>>> revision qualifies to remain at DS, or forces a recycle at PS.
>>
>> Why not try for recycle at DS and see what the IESG says?

I had intended to reply to this last week but it got lost in the shuffle:

"Try not. Do or Do not. There is no try." :-)

Speaking as the AD who's going to bring this to the IESG, I say: Let's 
have the WG *tell* the IESG what the interoperability implication of 
this is and *tell* the IESG what is appropriate. That is, the IESG is in 
no better position (and likely a worse one) than the WG participants to 
judge whether this change affects interoperability of the protocol. If 
you all say, "This restriction has not been implemented in any 
significant way, and for future work interoperability will be helped by 
removing the restriction", that justifies recycling at DS. If you all 
say, "We know of some implementations that will barf on this change and 
therefore we should probably have a bit to see how this deploys", that 
justifies PS.

> For such a small issue I don't see much problems with recycling at DS, 
> especially if there is evidence that the restriction being removed is 
> not obeyed in non DSN contexts.

Speaking for myself, I agree.

My current read of the list is that the WG feels that the restriction 
has not been significantly implemented and that DS is appropriate, but I 
will will leave it to the chair to make that call and leave it to the 
document shepherd to convey that in the writeup.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]