Re: Pete Resnick's Abstain on draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-16: (with COMMENT)

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

On 23/01/2014 12:34, Pete Resnick wrote:
> On 1/22/14 5:31 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
>> Pete,
>>
>> On Jan 22, 2014, at 3:21 PM, Pete Resnick<[e-mail]> 
>> wrote:
>>
>>   
>>> On 1/22/14 5:16 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
>>>     
>>>> I have a question about what will happen if we agree to change it to
>>>> Informational.  Will this require a new IETF last call, or sending
>>>> it back to the working group and starting the process over?
>>>>
>>>>        
>>> Nope. Going "down" in status just takes the wave of the IESG's magic
>>> wand. 2026, 6.1.2, paragraph 5.
>>>      
>> Good, then I don't object.  Better to get it through the process than
>> argue over the IETF label.
>>
>> If there aren't objections from the w.g. then we can do that.
>>    
> 
> But there might be objections from others on the IESG. That's why I
> ABSTAINed instead of DISCUSSed. I'm not willing to stand in the way
> either, even though I think the standards track outcome is not the right
> one.

To wrap one more piece of rope around this axle, all IETF standards
are optional; we set out to define a bunch of alternative standards
for this particular area (IPv6 IIDs), and the market is left to choose.
I don't really see why this causes Pete heartburn. But I do think that
changing our practice now would be highly confusing to the said market.
Especially if we end up with a standards track or BCP document
that recommends using an Informational spec in preference to any
of the Standards Track specs.

    Brian