Re: [dtn] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dtn-ipn-update-09

[Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Feb 2, 2024 at 5:29 PM Rick Taylor <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi Russ,
>
> Thank you for the prompt review, comments inline...
>
> On 01/02/2024 22:18, Russ Housley via Datatracker wrote:
>
> Reviewer: Russ Housley
> Review result: Not Ready
>
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
> document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
>
> For more information, please see the FAQ at<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-dtn-ipn-update-09
> Reviewer: Russ Housley
> Review Date: 2024-02-01
> IETF LC End Date: 2024-02-12
> IESG Telechat date: unknown
>
> Summary: Not Ready
>
>
> Major Concerns:
>
> RFC 7116 is an Informational RFC, and this document, if approved, will
> be published an an RFC on the standards track.  It is very unusual for
> a standards-track RFC to update an Informational RFC.  I suggest that
> this document and a companion document ought to obsolete RFC 7116, where
> the companion document separately handles all of the non-ipn topics in
> RFC 7116.  The companion document can be an informational RFC.
>
> Yes, I can see your point.  We have had this problem before in the IETF WG
> where we have updated IRTF documents that are almost always Informational.
> Given RFC7116 only describes behaviours and registries for BPv6, and this
> draft only discusses BPv7, we may be able to introduce "new" registries
> (with exactly the same content as the CBHE registries) for BPv7, without
> updating the CBHE registries, therefore not officially "obsoleting" or
> "updating" RFC7116. This seems a lot like the tail wagging the dog, but I
> can see it solving a process issue. I'll discuss with Zahed for advice.
>

Note that this current specification updates both standard track (RFC 9171)
and informational RFC (RFC7 116) , hence it at least need to be a PS. I
also don't see PS updating an informational is an issues ( I would have
concerned if the other way around ). I don't think right now any changes
are needed here. However, I have raised this in the IESG and if there is
any other conclusion than what I have assessed here, I will let you know.

//Zahed

>
>