Re: [Tsv-art] TSV-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-04

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Sat, 18 March 2017 16:29 UTC

Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@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 D216F128990; Sat, 18 Mar 2017 09:29:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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, HTML_MESSAGE=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 BGtviaYnT_Lm; Sat, 18 Mar 2017 09:29:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x230.google.com (mail-yw0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::230]) (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 3C7B8126C23; Sat, 18 Mar 2017 09:29:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x230.google.com with SMTP id p77so69459934ywg.1; Sat, 18 Mar 2017 09:29:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=QP7Ad3xw5AaIL8XecERqqwciyXhHBh/db/9NXreMeP8=; b=J44VsjLHUxEibJ+kwDAWenhRXZXFp/JlTHhtcpdNCKL27I+GoUr6u8/DyOHxlJ4q+G 42E1scEhPAflsiyn/fiHunMTVyIfaa/badVu2cDNgsJRaDxXSacKD2fEYSC27yj4obcL 7vY106qLmxsSwXr1U2Bk+fahSVKeqyT19oRlFP6UDpI5l1MxCnTGY4bTJQKni1aeOyiT uTHCxWXpDcYB6J75dQKpOV2b6JFcdJ8zUaI1uOp0jybj+zS1aRqhUDAHniGN0eGlERHS yEbCWzx8BngOvAsEmlZZ3Pr9o1mSnk33osYhM5FF25R2OsTXjxaJtn2D8xU8IqkTNQ+S fZeg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=QP7Ad3xw5AaIL8XecERqqwciyXhHBh/db/9NXreMeP8=; b=nFwQ6Es9PLj2S/wY4sorJSHKfmueavSVFL7eowt+i/eYldPyeN+S3TrKsQRImjSt3C C37BvJBEihLMy7/sq4fl35YmpTOqJnYR6VRSZoSg9RhFxMGtvqcCgf2OnBwnn+lM7Bu1 eODIIgDkjDaNuyqAXOdwy0e9biz/mu/SFXOziHnBUHTKYAa14PLgeQwfc5Ob44L0p2Mt ouWZZzSad/TPywqLrg5MXUXg4LfCVPr3iil+BPcp2gzrK9Ouvs8ESmYSsMSW6AYsbO13 d6v8VD2Yjpz6rrg+0IL3uDghFS9PRQi/0nk1fLcQC6ApDXNJFXNLZTZ/G7T5u+3MAfAh NK/g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H0RJYPKVJsOE/GPQ4czLYRXFYPXJy89io8OcjlLHpaS6i1iyE9NMODdctR46RX9AagPhYWDULpmXZUSWQ==
X-Received: by 10.13.243.197 with SMTP id c188mr7737842ywf.248.1489854573543; Sat, 18 Mar 2017 09:29:33 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.77.197 with HTTP; Sat, 18 Mar 2017 09:29:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.37.77.197 with HTTP; Sat, 18 Mar 2017 09:29:32 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <01fc4067-6825-9343-7735-86f9bf77bebe@isi.edu>
References: <48bfa3a1-e53c-6b31-69b0-2645ddd5937f@isi.edu> <41A44496-F222-40D5-95FE-5CE142C3827F@gmail.com> <46d7ae23-cf3d-570d-3d79-9d915663cf16@isi.edu> <8D6CA1F7-CB01-4FCD-B81C-ECBEFC088EAE@gmail.com> <e55e095b-b5c6-56e8-d4be-0b438c61ae67@isi.edu> <CAKKJt-eqbA65wiyP575Kbni4b31Jo37uZ0n=0UGn62A_n30H8Q@mail.gmail.com> <01fc4067-6825-9343-7735-86f9bf77bebe@isi.edu>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 11:29:32 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKKJt-fh5r+ENsZA28W+XRqoVLBUNbk-SsQpV3KwWUrDic2CEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Tsv-art] TSV-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-04
To: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Cc: tsv-art@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, ipv6@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c0356909f8a4b054b03ccd5"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/rW0LdIyEpcWeFz6uPvHornbpkFY>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 16:29:37 -0000

Hi, Joe,

On Mar 18, 2017 11:27, "Joe Touch" <touch@isi.edu> wrote:

FWIW, I was thinking of an update that focused on the description issue
below.

Nothing functionally would change.

Ah - I'm glad I asked!

Thanks,

Spencer

Joe

On 3/18/2017 9:03 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:

I may not be answering the question Joe asked, but ...

On Mar 17, 2017 19:36, "Joe Touch" <touch@isi.edu> wrote:



On 3/17/2017 4:31 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
> Joe,
>
> I think this will be up to the AD and IESG.
OK - I'll wait for them to respond.
> If you (and others) want to work on a major update, I am happy to share
the XML.  I hope we don’t end up with can’t move the current document
forward, and no one wants to do a major update.
I'd certainly prefer to have this doc address these issues.

One question - if a major update occurred, would that be at the same
standard level? If so, and if these issues are of concern, I'd be glad
to take that on.

If a major rev is a standards-level setback, that would be less useful.

I'd like to hear their views...


So, RFC 1981 is a Draft Standard, which is theoretically a bigger deal than
a Proposed Standard. If a replacement to RFC 1981 doesn't work the same way
that RFC 1981 works, I don't see how it would also be a Draft Standard,
based on the standards level of the RFC it would be replacing. Do others
see something I'm missing?

However.

Assuming that a replacement for RFC 1981 Path MTU Discovery doesn't have
the issues we've been talking about in these threads, I would hope that we
could publish that replacement at Proposed Standard (not at Experimental).

Given that we don't use the Draft Standard level for advancing standards
track RFCs any more (post https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6410/), would
publishing a replacement that works better than RFC 1981 at Proposed
Standard be a bad thing?

Curiously yours,

Spencer


Joe

_______________________________________________
Tsv-art mailing list
Tsv-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art