Re: TSV-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-04

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Sat, 18 March 2017 00:36 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
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 9E571129630; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 17:36:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TlnkGvLfMqOs; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 17:36:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nitro.isi.edu (nitro.isi.edu [128.9.208.207]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9755912966D; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 17:36:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [128.9.184.195] ([128.9.184.195]) (authenticated bits=0) by nitro.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v2I0aEnw029134 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 17 Mar 2017 17:36:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: TSV-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-04
To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
References: <48bfa3a1-e53c-6b31-69b0-2645ddd5937f@isi.edu> <41A44496-F222-40D5-95FE-5CE142C3827F@gmail.com> <46d7ae23-cf3d-570d-3d79-9d915663cf16@isi.edu> <8D6CA1F7-CB01-4FCD-B81C-ECBEFC088EAE@gmail.com>
Cc: "tsv-art@ietf.org" <tsv-art@ietf.org>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Message-ID: <e55e095b-b5c6-56e8-d4be-0b438c61ae67@isi.edu>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 17:36:14 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <8D6CA1F7-CB01-4FCD-B81C-ECBEFC088EAE@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MailScanner-ID: v2I0aEnw029134
X-ISI-4-69-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/YrpdaxYXgj1qUTBQJzeUlB9BZUY>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 00:36:37 -0000


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...

Joe