[Bier] RFC status change (was: Re: Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT))

Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> Wed, 12 January 2022 20:06 UTC

Return-Path: <eckert@i4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
X-Original-To: bier@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bier@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 790E73A1B15; Wed, 12 Jan 2022 12:06:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.87
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.87 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uYVesjixtlQl; Wed, 12 Jan 2022 12:06:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 174363A1B13; Wed, 12 Jan 2022 12:06:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.34.51]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A768E58C4AF; Wed, 12 Jan 2022 21:05:58 +0100 (CET)
Received: by faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id 96BC24EA33E; Wed, 12 Jan 2022 21:05:58 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2022 21:05:58 +0100
From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: Robert Wilton via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com>, "draft-ietf-bier-te-arch@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-bier-te-arch@ietf.org>, Xuesong Geng <gengxuesong@huawei.com>, "bier@ietf.org" <bier@ietf.org>, "bier-chairs@ietf.org" <bier-chairs@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <Yd80ppXyN6ptbz/1@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <162989945476.29713.12937356180696657837@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAMMESsxiRE_YijFK6pKfk74O=xzAoRCmvBDDkeTcMLom5pexdA@mail.gmail.com> <BN9PR11MB5436459817F2904502F88CB6B5C69@BN9PR11MB5436.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAMMESsxcVeRsW0qNUO-f0EBDVeozMP--gdJhe_ia+trV-pM=7g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAMMESsxcVeRsW0qNUO-f0EBDVeozMP--gdJhe_ia+trV-pM=7g@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/O62vxkki5ml-A5QaZKHNpRaXE50>
Subject: [Bier] RFC status change (was: Re: Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT))
X-BeenThere: bier@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "\"Bit Indexed Explicit Replication discussion list\"" <bier.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bier>, <mailto:bier-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bier/>
List-Post: <mailto:bier@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bier-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier>, <mailto:bier-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2022 20:06:09 -0000

inline

On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 11:19:57AM -0700, Alvaro Retana wrote:
> On August 25, 2021 at 12:08:31 PM, Rob Wilton wrote:
> 
> 
> Rob:
> 
> > When I pulled up these docs, and both in tools and datatracker the document
> > boilerplate has them as experimental. Do you know if this is a generic issue,
> > or specific to these docs for some reason? I would say that having different
> > status in different places is highly confusing.
> 
> Yes, it is confusing.  The problem is that the boilerplate is part of
> the RFC, so it's immutable.

The immutability of the boilerplate seems to just be some policy we, or RFC
Editor made up. I don't see any reason why we can not change that. I also
observe that "Updated by": already breaks boilerplate immutability...

Toerless