RE: IPLS

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

Sasha,

Just an update...

The IESG is in the process of updating its statement on "Designating RFCs as
Historic". It includes the following text:

   An RFC may be published directly as Historic, with no earlier status to
change
   (see, for example, RFC 4870). This is usually done to document ideas that
were
   considered and discarded, or protocols that were already historic when it was
   decided to document them. Those publications are handled as are any other 
   RFCs.

Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: L2vpn [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Alexander Vainshtein
> Sent: 14 July 2014 14:15
> To: Loa Andersson
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: IPLS
> 
> Loa,
> Lots of thanks for a prompt response.
> 
> I agree that making a document permanently available  (for some degree of
> permanence:-) is a valid reason for publishing it as a Historic RFC.
> 
> Regards,
>        Sasha
> Email: [e-mail]
> Mobile: [phone]
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Loa Andersson [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 4:08 PM
> > To: Alexander Vainshtein; Giles Heron
> > Cc: [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: IPLS
> >
> > Sasha,
> >
> > hmmm - the MPLS wg pubished RFC 6348, that is a requirement document,
> > so in itself it has not been implemented or deployed; even if you can
> > problably make the argument that specification fulfilling the requirements
> > has.
> >
> > I think that making a document is because we want it to available in the
> > future.
> >
> > /Loa
> >
> > On 2014-07-14 14:27, Alexander Vainshtein wrote:
> > > Hi Giles,
> > > Lots of thanks for a prompt response.
> > >
> > > I have always thought that Historic RFCs describe something that has been
> > implemented and deployed, but new standards are now in force.
> > > E.g., original Martini drafts (which definitely have been implemented and
> > deployed)  have been published as Historic RFCs.
> > >
> > > For the sake of curiosity, is this the case with IPLS?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >         Sasha
> > > Email: [e-mail]
> > > Mobile: [phone]
> > >
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Giles Heron [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > >> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 3:10 PM
> > >> To: Alexander Vainshtein
> > >> Cc: [e-mail]
> > >> Subject: Re: IPLS
> > >>
> > >> Hi Sasha,
> > >>
> > >> yes - I believe that's the plan.
> > >>
> > >> Giles
> > >>
> > >> On 14 Jul 2014, at 13:09, Alexander Vainshtein
> > >> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Giles,
> > >>> Do you intend to progress it directly to Historic RFC?
> > >>>
> > >>> Regards,
> > >>>        Sasha
> > >>> Email: [e-mail]
> > >>> Mobile: [phone]
> > >>>
> > >>>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>>> From: L2vpn [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Giles
> > >>>> Heron
> > >>>> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 3:08 PM
> > >>>> To: [e-mail]
> > >>>> Subject: IPLS
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Hi all,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> the IPLS draft (probably the oldest draft ever to attempt to
> > >>>> progress to RFC) was recently re-published as "historic" rather
> > >>>> than
> > >> "informational":
> > >>>>
> > >>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls-14
> > >>>>
> > >>>> To that end the IANA assignments requested in the draft were also
> > >>>> withdrawn - though they could be re-instated if the draft were ever
> > >>>> to progress.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Based on these changes we now intend to progress this draft to RFC.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Giles
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
> > Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
> > Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone]