Re: Status of draft-ietf-6man-lineid

Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net> Mon, 30 July 2012 19:45 UTC

Return-Path: <brian@innovationslab.net>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C18811E81C7 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 12:45:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LxDIsR9n5XkL for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 12:45:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uillean.fuaim.com (uillean.fuaim.com [206.197.161.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA68F11E81D4 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 12:45:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clairseach.fuaim.com (clairseach.fuaim.com [206.197.161.141]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uillean.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EDBE88094; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 12:45:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-5588.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-5588.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.85.136]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clairseach.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D5C8130017; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 12:45:56 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5016E473.9010302@innovationslab.net>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:45:55 -0400
From: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Status of draft-ietf-6man-lineid
References: <4FFB7918.9080806@innovationslab.net> <49AE274A-AC1C-463E-AB02-C022B39232E4@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <49AE274A-AC1C-463E-AB02-C022B39232E4@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: 6man Chairs <6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 19:45:57 -0000

Bob,
      I agree that there is consensus to move this forward as PS.  There 
will be an IETF Last Call for the draft as a PS started after Vancouver.

Regards,
Brian

On 7/26/12 7:47 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
> Brian,
>
> In the two plus weeks since you sent this, I saw one email in support
> and none is opposition.  Given the lack of objections to publishing
> this as a Proposed Standard, I think OK to go forward as a PS.
>
> Bob
>
> On Jul 9, 2012, at 5:36 PM, Brian Haberman wrote:
>
>> All, During the IESG discussion of draft-ietf-6man-lineid, the
>> question was raised as to its appropriate status.  The WG decided
>> to advance the draft as Experimental since it had documented
>> limitations and was targeted to a limited deployment scenario.
>> Several ADs raised the issue that the above reasons do not
>> necessarily make the draft inappropriate for Proposed Standard, To
>> quote feedback from one of the ADs (Barry Leiba):
>>
>>
>> "If the limitations are clearly documented and if that document can
>> be used to target implementations correctly, then I think PS is
>> completely appropriate.  If experimentation is needed to
>> *determine* the limitations, or to determine how to implement the
>> specification to as not to interfere with inapplicable situations,
>> then Experimental is best."
>>
>>
>> In my view, there is a clear understanding of what the limitations
>> of this approach are and they can be clearly defined in an
>> applicability statement within the draft.  Additionally, we know
>> the deployment scenario (N:1 VLAN usage in broadband networks)
>> where this approach will be used.
>>
>> My question is whether there is opposition or support within the
>> community to move the document to Proposed Standard as long as
>> there is a sufficient applicability statement included in the
>> draft.  Please provide feedback to the mailing list (and the cc:'ed
>> ADs) on this proposed change.
>>
>> Regards, Brian
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests:
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------