Re: [homenet] homenet-babel-profile: status experimental?

"STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com> Fri, 05 January 2018 15:11 UTC

Return-Path: <bs7652@att.com>
X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3249B129C5D for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 07:11:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.621
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.621 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 6CySJSmygWNN for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 07:11:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.149.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1D4E124C27 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 07:11:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0049297.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0049297.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.16.0.21/8.16.0.21) with SMTP id w05F8DqA047790 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 10:11:19 -0500
Received: from alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (sbcsmtp6.sbc.com [144.160.229.23]) by m0049297.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 2fa93cauww-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for <homenet@ietf.org>; Fri, 05 Jan 2018 10:11:18 -0500
Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w05FBHtK007303 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 10:11:17 -0500
Received: from alpi134.aldc.att.com (alpi134.aldc.att.com [130.8.217.4]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w05FBFej007279 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for <homenet@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 10:11:16 -0500
Received: from zlp30488.vci.att.com (zlp30488.vci.att.com [135.47.91.93]) by alpi134.aldc.att.com (RSA Interceptor) for <homenet@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 15:11:01 GMT
Received: from zlp30488.vci.att.com (zlp30488.vci.att.com [127.0.0.1]) by zlp30488.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id 2A54F40002A3 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 15:11:01 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from GAALPA1MSGHUBAE.ITServices.sbc.com (unknown [130.8.218.154]) by zlp30488.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTPS id 191CA40002A0 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 15:11:01 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com ([169.254.5.227]) by GAALPA1MSGHUBAE.ITServices.sbc.com ([130.8.218.154]) with mapi id 14.03.0361.001; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 10:11:00 -0500
From: "STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com>
To: "homenet@ietf.org" <homenet@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [homenet] homenet-babel-profile: status experimental?
Thread-Index: AdNh8mmbbWuDoHtTRryGOOU8YYi2KQAcPTaACPS/iVA=
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 15:11:00 +0000
Message-ID: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114DCE88BA@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com>
References: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114DCBB5AC@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> <87d14cg1ye.wl-jch@irif.fr>
In-Reply-To: <87d14cg1ye.wl-jch@irif.fr>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [130.10.255.40]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-RSA-Inspected: yes
X-RSA-Classifications: public
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2018-01-05_07:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=971 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1711220000 definitions=main-1801050213
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/35EU8oBr8hunvvSRYUStypZIPVU>
Subject: Re: [homenet] homenet-babel-profile: status experimental?
X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Homenet WG mailing list <homenet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/homenet/>
List-Post: <mailto:homenet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2018 15:11:22 -0000

Hi homenet,
Since there has been no objection raised to changing the status of this draft from Informational to Proposed Standard, the change has been made.
If you do have a strong objection, though, I'd like to hear it.

The reasons in favor of the change are:
- the main reference, draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis, is currently Proposed Standard
- there exist multiple, interoperable implementations of this reference
- no drafts proposing other homenet routing protocol profiles have been submitted
- avoids needing to create a new revision (with new RFC number) at a later time to change from Experimental

Barbara

> -----Original Message-----
> Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 2:55 PM
> Subject: Re: [homenet] homenet-babel-profile: status experimental?
> 
> > Currently the draft has intended status of "Experimental".
> 
> That's what Mark told me to do.
> 
> > Given the intended status of 6126bis is Standards Track (and HNCP (RFC
> > 7788) is also Standards Track), would it make sense to make
> > homenet-babel-profile Standards Track as well?
> 
> Yes, I think so.
> 
> > This question does depend on which Babel spec homenet-babel-profile
> > will reference (6126 or 6126bis). [I sent a separate email with
> > comments related to references.] If homenet-babel-profile is going to
> > use 6126 as its spec reference, then Experimental probably would make
> more sense.
> 
> It's going to use 6126bis.
> 
> -- Juliusz