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

[Giuseppe Fioccola <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tommy, All,
Thank you for the update.
I have just published draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis-00 and draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis-00.
I plan to publish the -01 versions by this week to address the comments received during the adoption call.

Regards,

Giuseppe


From: ippm <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Tommy Pauly
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2022 6:03 PM
To: Tommy Pauly <tpauly=[e-mail]>; IETF IPPM WG <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [ippm] WG adoption call for RFC8321bis and 8889bis

Hello all,

Thanks to everyone who provided feedback! Based on the input, we will formally adopt these documents.

We are expecting a revision this week, and then we’ll kick off a working group last call.

Best,
Tommy


On Apr 7, 2022, at 5:03 PM, Tommy Pauly <tpauly=[e-mail]<mailto:tpauly=[e-mail]>> 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 <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> 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
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm

_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm