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

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
> --------------------------------------------------------------------