Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-hbh-header-handling-01

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 07/03/2016 11:33, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
> Something to discuss wth the chairs, I suppose. The first question is whether 2460bis is ready about when it is, or one is later.
> 
> I'd like to believe this is close to done, and I suspect Bob would like to believe 2460bis is close to done.... If so, the chairs may prefer to somehow incorporate it into 2460bis and ship it.

I don't see that happening, because 2460bis is supposed to be aimed at
Internet Standard status and that requires solid operational experience
for all features. hbh-header-handling is some years from that situation,
unfortunately. So I can only see it as a Proposed Standard update
to the future Internet Standard.

(You may recall draft-loughney-newtrk-one-size-fits-all. I always
thought that would have saved us a lot of bureaucracy.)

   Brian

>> On Mar 5, 2016, at 6:55 AM, Fernando Gont <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> On 03/04/2016 07:08 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>>
>>> Also, I would suggest sequencing this draft to come out *after* 2460bis.
>>> It might have the distinction of being the first RFC to update 2460bis.
>>
>> Not that I like to point this out, but...
>> One one hand, if we're working on rfc2460bis, then one would argue that
>> if we're to intentionally stall draft-ietf-6man-hbh-header-handling so
>> that it gets published after rfc2460bis, then why not incorporate it in
>> rfc2460bis?
>>
>> I'd expect that this doc is published soon & as is: It updates
>> RFC2460... and then rfc2460bis picks RFC2460 plus updates.
>>
>> --
>> Fernando Gont
>> SI6 Networks
>> e-mail: [e-mail]
>> PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
>>
>>
>>
>>
>