Re: [ippm] WG adoption call for RFC8321bis and 8889bis

Hi Tommy, Marcus, et al.,
I support the IPPM WG adoption of:

   - draft-fioccola-rfc8321bis (as co-author)
   - draft-fioccola-rfc8889bis (as an enthusiastic supporter of the
   Alternate Marking method)

Regards,
Greg

On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 5:03 PM Tommy Pauly <tpauly=
40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> Hello IPPM,
>
> This email starts an adoption call for draft-fioccola-rfc8321bis
> and draft-fioccola-rfc8889bis. Please see Martin’s emails below for details
> — the main idea here is that we’re moving two IPPM RFCs from Experimental
> to Proposed Standard.
>
> The chairs would like to have a short amount of time spent in the WG
> processing these documents. If we adopt, we’d plan to very shortly
> thereafter do a working group last call.
>
> Please reply to this email by *Thursday, April 21* and indicate if you
> support adopting this document.
>
> Best,
> Tommy & Marcus
>
> On Apr 7, 2022, at 1:16 PM, Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello IPPM,
>
> You may recall that there was a need to progress RFC8321 and RFC8889 from
> Experimental to Proposed Standard. There was a feeling that the update
> would be trivial and we could therefore do it as an AD sponsored document.
>
> I've done 3 rounds of AD review and I've seen the need to substantially
> adjust the scope of these documents and tweak the design in places. The
> changes are not revolutionary, but I'm a non-practitioner and have driven
> some design changes with minimal review. At this point I think it's
> important to get good IPPM review; if we're going to do that anyway, we
> might as well do the (expedited) working group process so that there's no
> confusion as to why IPPM didn't formally review an update to its own
> documents.
>
> So, as first step, I invite the working group to adopt these two drafts:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fioccola-rfc8321bis/
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fioccola-rfc8889bis/
> Any objections to adoption, as always, should be to the value of doing the
> work at all, and the general direction of the drafts. I hope to follow up
> the adoption call with an immediate WGLC to shake out any detailed
> objections, though we will take as long as we need to address concerns that
> people have.
>
> I invite you to consult the changelogs on both of these documents, which
> are not long, to get a sense of what we've done.
>
> For those of you who like diffs, there was a big reorganization between
> draft-02 and -03 that is hard to follow in a diff. So here is a set of
> diffs that exclude the -02 to -03 transition:
>
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=rfc8321.txt&url2=draft-fioccola-rfc8321bis-02.txt
>
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-fioccola-rfc8321bis-03.txt&url2=draft-fioccola-rfc8321bis-04.txt
>
>
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=rfc8889.txt&url2=draft-fioccola-rfc8889bis-02.txt
>
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-fioccola-rfc8889bis-03.txt&url2=draft-fioccola-rfc8889bis-04.txt
>
> I believe it's up to the chairs to start the adoption call. If people are
> good about reading the document during WGLC, I would like to think we could
> be done before IETF 114.
>
> Your friendly Area Director,
> Martin
>
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> ippm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> ippm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>