IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Opinion requested: Independent submission of draft-sarikaya-6man-sadr-overview-11

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Fri, 23 September 2016 21:50 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
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 4805612BB50 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 14:50:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 y8G9RsmibTaJ for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 14:50:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf0-x22c.google.com (mail-pf0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22c]) (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 342A212BC5F for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 14:50:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id s13so11435404pfd.2 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 14:50:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=zaae/eDc817e8rIxhkV40VwhGPOwHZb8P/wLeH+sZL8=; b=qhV/dfW9EViB+TBKsXxz0y2BfsyVMshYM/RBA1r0tMKkL/FzHVVSyzt2h4qA5Zzo1S p60x6Fu/EFrbNJE6F/oxIcRAHy81nFIJVYHk0CwSeRQlCj5kGQnXWgkaBPAg0Exh4l6T o5EzH5ay6P2O2bgiba6xxL6GLaT+rIULmdARXrM252ucRpSYbtRTTS3dkuWQqlt0hDRF jEYYOl+1C/Du7Oz1aSvdiCCni5sK4KiHORT4/oF9fmeeOuG0sZhi74gMMJJTBUxUPrLt 5SE5CKSu904mJt0EoNxNetvB/9ieKV/Ns4xmQBGX6cOHgWKcxHsSBENdR/mRTGmCPFqO 3NfQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=zaae/eDc817e8rIxhkV40VwhGPOwHZb8P/wLeH+sZL8=; b=QZpnZhEIxZd5QEGmXO4R1OIOYMyZaUhq0RJ+i3hfmLDMYiT42VuSIZ/vqiVg+RtkXy Lv2r26ob0k7yfB3e6SouYPBV0NR9qccFWlqiTLNSH/WZHFseoClocI8wYGnvVUIY3w6E TRsjJuRpGwUVzS79y1Xbg8VboqFO8sRpLAvBf9x9x/O5uH9mLukP41r1mVvXcS5pfA91 htYRZP4QGzGXXqgRFfEH6kensRZLy0C6ws4c2PD7z5iA6urZ6zYgertOxVzAiCo4mDfP HF9tlAvsHgrqnmdTgWQ5arRc4DVVfA26pa7+v0ipZoBt3s6SU0Xq26G/QSndd+Io1e4n sy9Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwNb1ZBxCgPDGgPvyRIVCczZ3u2nlQiNfzpJ28/+L82P6OM7WL+iMW2QIjEtYPJKiw==
X-Received: by 10.98.31.10 with SMTP id f10mr16301904pff.137.1474667416847; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 14:50:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:6ac5:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:6ac5:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ah5sm13673341pad.30.2016.09.23.14.50.14 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 23 Sep 2016 14:50:16 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Opinion requested: Independent submission of draft-sarikaya-6man-sadr-overview-11
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>, Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>
References: <m1bmzsl-0000FtC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <E87B771635882B4BA20096B589152EF643EDABCD@eusaamb107.ericsson.se> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1609231155010.1477@uplift.swm.pp.se>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <a1598605-a3b7-1476-6a48-17a1ab7bda62@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 09:50:24 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1609231155010.1477@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/_uF8k-ITTa2mLqO3ZwuHF8j8-NE>
Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 21:50:19 -0000

Mikael,

Hat on as a member of (not a spokesperson for) the Independent
Stream Editorial Board, and intentionally *not* answering Suresh's
question:
On 23/09/2016 22:16, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
...
> I have found over time that draft-sarikaya-6man-sadr-overview has been a 
> useful document to ask people to read who have no idea about the SADR 
> problem space.
> 
> It seems mostly to document ongoing (sometimes historical) work in a few 
> WGs (references several expired drafts), but span several of them (MIF 
> (now INTAREA), 6MAN, V6OPS), perhaps some other WG.
> 
> It's also "informational", which (afaik) lowers the bar for publication.

RFCs in the Independent stream are always Informational.

> It has at least one old reference, for instance to 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-10 which is now 
> RFC7788.

The RFC Editor fixes such references.

> It also claims in 3.1 OSPF is used by HNCP, whereas RFC7788
> doesn't contain the word OSPF.

Good catch. Tell the author and I'm sure he'll fix it.

> So my recommendation is that -11 shouldn't be published as-is because it's 
> not accurate (which isn't one of the options above?). What to do if these 
> problems are fixed in a -12 version, I don't know. I would like to see 
> more review for accuracy before publication. I'm not saying this needs to 
> be IETF-wide review, but of the options above, that's the only one that 
> would fit.

No it doesn't, because that option is conditioned by "this document extends
an IETF protocol", which it clearly doesn't.

> If I didn't have to choose any of the options you listed, I'd say review 
> and discussion in V6OPS and INTAREA, a few more revisions, and I'd support 
> publication. But... I have little idea about IETF procedures and how these 
> kinds of documents have been handled historically.

6man already declined to publish this draft, so essentially it's nothing to
do with the IETF any more. I'm sure the author would still appreciate constructive
comments at this stage, but the document belongs to the Independent stream,
which is, er, independent.

Regards,
    Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email