Re: [Idr] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-23: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

["Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[e-mail]>]

Alvaro,

Thank you for your detailed reply. About your point 1), Sue has indeed updated the implementation wiki page and, if I understand correctly the IDR processes, this should allow the WGLC & publication of the IPv6 document. 

With this new element, do you (and the WG chairs) believe that making a cluster is doable ? Else, I am trusting you as responsible AD and the chairs to expedite the IPv6 document processing (including 'jumping the RFCE queue') to have them published roughly at the same time. This is indeed very similar to a formal cluster.

If we agree on the above (expedite processing for IPv6 document and/or cluster) then I am clearing my DISCUSS.

Regards

-éric

PS: still wondering why this situation arise in 2020 :-O


-----Original Message-----
From: Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>
Date: Friday, 24 April 2020 at 19:41
To: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>, Eric Vyncke <[e-mail]>, The IESG <[e-mail]>
Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, Jie Dong <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-23: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

    Eric:

    Hi!

    I appreciate all your hard work on making sure that IPv6 is always considered.

    However, I disagree with your request.

    (1) IPv6 has been considered. The WG has completed the work on FlowSpec for
        IPv6 — it is just waiting for implementation reports. [Sue already updated
        the tracking page. [1]]

    (2) By requiring joint publication, you are effectively overturning the WG
        consensus to clean rfc5575 up and leave new functionality to new
        documents. As Sue already mentioned, the IPv6 functionality is not the
        only document that depends on this base — so we would be delaying
        that publication too (because of the Normative reference).

    (3) This document already contains a reference to the IPv6 document. That will
        be more effective than requiring adjacent RFC numbers. It is not always
        the case where documents in the same cluster receive adjacent RFC numbers.

    (4) This request is not aligned with the DISCUSS Criteria [2].


    Having said all that, I am willing to prioritize my review of the IPv6
    document (when the WG requests publication), and would not oppose a
    request to the RFC Editor for expedited processing in order to get an
    RFC number assigned before rfc5575bis is published.  I think this is
    reasonable considering the time it may take the document to reach
    AUTH48.


    Thanks!

    Alvaro.


    [1] https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6%20implementations

    [2] https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/iesg-discuss-criteria/


    On April 24, 2020 at 9:50:24 AM, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker
    ([e-mail](mailto:[e-mail])) wrote:

    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    > DISCUSS:
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    > Thank you for the work put into this document. The document is clear, easy to
    > read (I appreciated the given examples).
    >
    > Alas, due to overload of work, I had only a quick browse through the document
    > with specific focus points and found nothing EXCEPT why having two different
    > documents ? One for IPv4 (with the core elements of the protocol) and one for
    > IPv6 (with only the IPv6 specifics)... I am more than surprized to say the
    > least... hence my DISCUSS...
    >
    > This blocking DISCUSS can easily be fixed: e.g., with a RFC Editor note to
    > make a cluster of this document and draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6 so that they
    > are published together with adjacent RFC numbers. Merging the two documents
    > would be preferred but I understand that this is more work (albeit a missed
    > opportunity).