IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: RFC 8321 (Alternate-Marking Method for Passive and Hybrid Performance Monitoring) and RFC 8889 (Multipoint Alternate-Marking Method for Passive and Hybrid Performance Monitoring)to Proposed Standard

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 31 August 2021 02:02 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2DF03A2BB1; Mon, 30 Aug 2021 19:02:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 EZOEHPieslyQ; Mon, 30 Aug 2021 19:02:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pj1-x102d.google.com (mail-pj1-x102d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102d]) (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 B9BEE3A2BAC; Mon, 30 Aug 2021 19:02:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pj1-x102d.google.com with SMTP id n13-20020a17090a4e0d00b0017946980d8dso821674pjh.5; Mon, 30 Aug 2021 19:02:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=DHVkZNcK2dnPASwErUVc+rUxuq2IUbniOGyRQo8qEJE=; b=GnR/68KQHXPiwniNSInd6QIdFU8mRB5Tea0sy68GKC0/WnYVmjwPnCm3wFj/MSXxl6 YGGtkK1IImLVncrgbdsbYy8Am6Pf5WvhQTuYJZ/TrtufX8zRS5ndqP0ystH5cPuvq2tV Ag7b/ef9BJbnOD4tfNYIZlMIH0SE8yCR9dByhJwRnCZIAVABP/wCq/zxCfLp+tZhC89u d0de+R7MyYcI/iG3H6S+nssiGEcLVZKh3hs89C30UbIH9XLtZTbC7OVb0tsf0/o1wLiv y/AuSzrRfrpgTRwfA19RL9UVIKbMwbcBhgHf5j+GMJ+L3o5/BCCkC5Xkrx9s4NVpbPGq P7gA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=DHVkZNcK2dnPASwErUVc+rUxuq2IUbniOGyRQo8qEJE=; b=JiyD61FstHlEMYwBbkrWGu1kWAUuBGXbDCTjGvw6bQGbua+6ZYPXQgMi7w5mDNWSqW y5FgomF971SBY6xz47eVjFDrwSlBYfuq05J47/UEyCf4Cc/cwJPBa8cVInmMahqrh3yB OpcrS0vvsyCD37eCXQygxBceCyxjlMedkfh4/9cjluI1wXN58qHkqKTWylbiPB0UFE/G A/sAwAe3YXosvwQ/mDo3k3YHdmhfknmvL4QrKsjGuzcY8a8FETG/P7+kl5o5vGwCoX0M lgQz/bY/Zg6l/jWRzNJyEZtL0WiOOYbRxeBBJN8NRg+QPU41TRNEMgrusVxN+U6bCktU XLVg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533OsFSLs98m7KHgL+Yg+RDEJ19DAtQHh3TJaZueS+/6ErOM1mYE PNHckN1WLVB0XF35ay3EmjOx3Un0tfpBPg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwZTaaSCz/vrEwvVi21lOo45ewf1njS8nev3XorYjVm+7MkXZIymu0+M9anTvnaeStaMh3oXg==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:e8c2:b029:123:25ba:e443 with SMTP id v2-20020a170902e8c2b029012325bae443mr2359893plg.29.1630375338590; Mon, 30 Aug 2021 19:02:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e003:11d3:cf01:80b2:5c79:2266:e431? ([2406:e003:11d3:cf01:80b2:5c79:2266:e431]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c26sm18419862pgl.10.2021.08.30.19.02.15 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 30 Aug 2021 19:02:17 -0700 (PDT)
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Cc: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, last-call@ietf.org, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <163009842725.17742.16380067018932520158@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAC4RtVARJC-rs_+nCBB8yXkrwYQcwO313=FLnLMKNGRD-0ZC_A@mail.gmail.c om> <C852F58C18C7524F5478521E@PSB> <283542a3-3d19-dad3-a385-b99bb88dad19@gmail.com> <BA07E4B42541B5A6542970D4@PSB>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <814f3198-45d0-9b24-35b6-cad7de00858e@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2021 14:02:12 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BA07E4B42541B5A6542970D4@PSB>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/iEqA86HYk2PhvK2R93fygNy889M>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: RFC 8321 (Alternate-Marking Method for Passive and Hybrid Performance Monitoring) and RFC 8889 (Multipoint Alternate-Marking Method for Passive and Hybrid Performance Monitoring)to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: last-call@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Last Calls <last-call.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/last-call/>
List-Post: <mailto:last-call@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2021 02:02:23 -0000

On 30-Aug-21 16:25, John C Klensin wrote:
> 
> 
> --On Monday, August 30, 2021 14:23 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
> <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> I also strongly concur. It is very close to trivial to issue
>> these two documents as I-Ds with standards track boilerplate
>> and give them a 4-week last call. That would conform to our
>> process and avoid an extremely confused and confusing end
>> state. A report on their experimental use would be a useful
>> adjunct to that last call.
>>
>> Maybe it would be quicker to use the normal downref mechanism,
>> since draft-mirsky-bier-pmmm-oam wants it.
> 
> Brian,
> 
> A downref to a standards track document, especially one we
> believe is stable (and maybe even deployed and interoperable)
> but that no one has gone to the effort to advance is one thing.
> Maybe I'm being over-rigid, but a downref to an explicitly
> experimental document without even an experimental outcome
> report seems to violate basic principles about stable
> references.

I agree it probably isn't what BCP97 intended, but there
is at least one precedent in the downref registry (RFC 3973).
However, I do prefer the other solution.

   Brian
  
> 
> AFAIKT, no Last Call has been issued on draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam
> (formerly draft-mirsky-bier-pmmm-oam).  Why not just spin up
> I-Ds to replace RFCs 8321 and 8889 and do this in an orderly
> fashion?  
> 
>    john
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email