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

Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> Thu, 26 July 2012 23:47 UTC

Return-Path: <bob.hinden@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 7FFE021F85EA for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:47:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.508
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.508 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.091, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 z5K-vlmwtYjl for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:47:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-f44.google.com (mail-pb0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F350B21F85E4 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:47:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pbcwy7 with SMTP id wy7so4052859pbc.31 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:47:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=wYseLR8vh4hSUotJjVpyDjLTgjQ17RdiTtsH7kBcirA=; b=XAWn6nu1iRUtuxtPwyoEMNzavw/ii6TJ/HuAtIgX8D/6yCxBfjdUAEln88kE4vDTgC 5cri9Q0257HLopbaKEF1nHbmmrcRFXtXHL47AwGnFtVTYFcv8iu+T4rBuPjIPEKDbe51 Afr38gda200sVEMqjU6VdSZkBjdN0hzYDoILXCIyNobkuamGjBtrno3FfSfYJ1sIDAWE 1JKacA1lTzjStIEJndLwMMmDCbVXAHNdaWewCQTDCLhZPRTF6YsALw55B2mJbpjWYkwr NNhJQOMxTWpTQdW6CwwUxI5G9Afq1xC1detbSlMHf72ACbTyQuWzntYEVIqzanKIMtno Wmyw==
Received: by 10.68.216.72 with SMTP id oo8mr8833982pbc.82.1343346460835; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:47:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.16.224.219] ([209.97.127.34]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ql6sm624484pbc.61.2012.07.26.16.47.39 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:47:40 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Status of draft-ietf-6man-lineid
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1280)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4FFB7918.9080806@innovationslab.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:47:38 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <49AE274A-AC1C-463E-AB02-C022B39232E4@gmail.com>
References: <4FFB7918.9080806@innovationslab.net>
To: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1280)
Cc: 6man Chairs <6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>, Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
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: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 23:47:41 -0000

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