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

[Riccardo Sisto <[e-mail]>]

Dear Tommy & Marcus,
I support adoption of the two RFCs (8889bis as author)

Best regards,

Riccardo Sisto

-- 
========================================================
Riccardo Sisto
Politecnico di Torino - Dip. di Automatica e Informatica
Corso Duca degli Abruzzi, 24 - I-10129 Torino - ITALY
Phone: [phone] - Fax: [phone]
e-mail: [e-mail]
web: http://staff.polito.it/riccardo.sisto
========================================================


> *Da:* ippm <[e-mail]> *Per conto di * Tommy Pauly
> *Inviato:* venerdì 8 aprile 2022 02:04
> *A:* IETF IPPM WG <[e-mail]>
> *Oggetto:* [EXT] [ippm] WG adoption call for RFC8321bis and 8889bis
> 
> 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-rfc8321bis/>
> 
>     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fioccola-rfc8889bis/
>     <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=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=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=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
>     <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
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>
>