Re: [Tsv-art] TSV-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-04

I may not be answering the question Joe asked, but ...

On Mar 17, 2017 19:36, "Joe Touch" <touch@isi.edu> wrote:

On 3/17/2017 4:31 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
> Joe,
>
> I think this will be up to the AD and IESG.
OK - I'll wait for them to respond.
> If you (and others) want to work on a major update, I am happy to share
the XML.  I hope we don’t end up with can’t move the current document
forward, and no one wants to do a major update.
I'd certainly prefer to have this doc address these issues.

One question - if a major update occurred, would that be at the same
standard level? If so, and if these issues are of concern, I'd be glad
to take that on.

If a major rev is a standards-level setback, that would be less useful.

I'd like to hear their views...

So, RFC 1981 is a Draft Standard, which is theoretically a bigger deal than
a Proposed Standard. If a replacement to RFC 1981 doesn't work the same way
that RFC 1981 works, I don't see how it would also be a Draft Standard,
based on the standards level of the RFC it would be replacing. Do others
see something I'm missing?

However.

Assuming that a replacement for RFC 1981 Path MTU Discovery doesn't have
the issues we've been talking about in these threads, I would hope that we
could publish that replacement at Proposed Standard (not at Experimental).

Given that we don't use the Draft Standard level for advancing standards
track RFCs any more (post https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6410/), would
publishing a replacement that works better than RFC 1981 at Proposed
Standard be a bad thing?

Curiously yours,

Spencer

Joe

_______________________________________________
Tsv-art mailing list
Tsv-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art