Status of draft-ietf-6man-lineid

Brian Haberman <> Tue, 10 July 2012 00:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8B7B11E8161 for <>; Mon, 9 Jul 2012 17:35:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mnod5PfDeYtw for <>; Mon, 9 Jul 2012 17:35:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E1BF11E8135 for <>; Mon, 9 Jul 2012 17:35:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23F6488097; Mon, 9 Jul 2012 17:36:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clemson.local ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A869130017; Mon, 9 Jul 2012 17:36:19 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 20:36:40 -0400
From: Brian Haberman <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: 6man WG <>, 6man Chairs <>, Barry Leiba <>, Pete Resnick <>, Ralph Droms <>
Subject: Status of draft-ietf-6man-lineid
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 00:35:56 -0000

      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.