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

t.petch <> Wed, 18 July 2012 08:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DBB521F8646 for <>; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 01:38:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.705
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.705 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.106, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KfC8gC2NN2iD for <>; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 01:38:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00EA821F86F7 for <>; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 01:38:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server id; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 08:39:18 +0000
Received: from mail82-am1 (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4929F260416; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 08:39:18 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI;; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
X-SpamScore: -24
X-BigFish: PS-24(zz9371I542M1432I1418Izz1202hzz8275ch1033IL8275bh8275dhz2dh2a8h5a9h668h839hd24hf0ah107ah304l)
Received: from mail82-am1 (localhost.localdomain []) by mail82-am1 (MessageSwitch) id 134260075631385_14918; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 08:39:16 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03DE84E0053; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 08:39:16 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 08:39:15 +0000
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 08:39:13 +0000
Message-ID: <00e101cd64c0$4060da40$>
From: t.petch <>
To: Brian Haberman <>, 6man WG <>, 6man Chairs <>, Barry Leiba <>, Pete Resnick <>, Ralph Droms <>
References: <>
Subject: Re: Status of draft-ietf-6man-lineid
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 09:35:02 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-Originating-IP: []
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: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 08:38:31 -0000

Angels on the head of a pin.

I think that almost all the world is unaware of the different
classifications and so the answer for them is moot.  Yes, I know, a few
official bodies do care but for Internet at large, it will make no

That said, I care and think that PS is alway preferrable unless there is
a good reason not to, that is, we should keep other categories, such as
Experimental, for those when we really do care and want a strong marker
that we can refer back to afterwards when those who do not appreciate
the difference have stumbled over it.

If in doubt, PS every time.

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Haberman" <>
To: "6man WG" <>rg>; "6man Chairs"
<>rg>; "Barry Leiba" <>rg>;
"Pete Resnick" <>om>; "Ralph Droms"
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 1:36 AM
Subject: Status of draft-ietf-6man-lineid

> All,
>       During the IESG discussion of draft-ietf-6man-lineid, the
> was raised as to its appropriate status.  The WG decided to advance
> draft as Experimental since it had documented limitations and was
> targeted to a limited deployment scenario.  Several ADs raised the
> that the above reasons do not necessarily make the draft inappropriate
> for Proposed Standard, To quote feedback from one of the ADs (Barry
> "If the limitations are clearly documented and if that document can be
> used to target implementations correctly, then I think PS is
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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