Re: Expiration impending: <draft-thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wireless-06.txt>

["Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[e-mail]>]

Hello Michael 

Sorry, replying to Brian took me to the end of the thread and my reply went to you.

Sometimes people including me try to publish an architecture as standard track. This was the case recently with DetNet and 6TiSCH. 

 I agree with your arguments I found that the IESG preferred informational for that type of work and then sign off on the down ref. Same goes for terminology documents.

Take care,

Pascal

> Le 23 nov. 2020 à 01:29, Michael Richardson <[e-mail]> a écrit :
> 
> 
> Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Can you explain why this is proposed as a standards track document? As
>> far as I can see it doesn't define any new protocol elements.
> 
> because it's a particular way of doing things, and there is a compliance
> activity around implementing and testing it.
> 
>> If it is, as I suspect, simply an explanation of how various other
>> standards fit together to provide WiND, it might be equally useful as
>> Informational, as well as much easier to get it published. Viewed that
>> way, I think it is very useful work.
> 
> Would you be okay for an RFP to go out citing an informational RFC?
> True, the trade tribunals don't know the difference, but we do.
> 
>> (There is also the standards track option of an Applicability
>> Statement, which the IETF uses very rarely and most people don't know
>> about.)
> 
> I'd be happy with using that.
> 
>> One comment you would surely get from reviewers is that the Security
>> Considerations should at least contain a summary of issues, even if the
>> details are in the references.
> 
>> One nit is that if you want to promote the "WiND" acronym, it should be
>> included in the document title.
> 
> I'm skeptical that this TLA will survive :-)
> 
> 
> --
> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
>           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
> 
> 
> 
>