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

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.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

On 30-Aug-21 08:26, John C Klensin wrote:
> FWIW, I strongly concur.  Everyone participating in the IETF who
> has been concerned about, or had to listen to people complaining
> about, non-standards-track RFC being marketed as standards
> should think about the boon this would be to those inclined to
> do such things if we start providing worked examples of RFCs
> that clearly say "Experimental" and "Not a Standard" being
> standards after all.
> 
> And, like Joe, I'd expect to see a formal report on the
> experiment and is outcome before any action is taken on this or
> a replacement document.
> 
>    john
> 
> 
> --On Sunday, August 29, 2021 12:51 -0400 Barry Leiba
> <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:
> 
>> I don't understand how we can reclassify Experimental RFCs to
>> Proposed Standard without re-issuing them with a new RFC
>> number, as the boilerplate is incompatible.  Specifically, the
>> "Status of This Memo" section says:
>>
>>    This document is not an Internet Standards Track
>> specification; it is    published for examination,
>> experimental implementation, and    evaluation.
>>
>>    This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the
>> Internet    community.
>>
>> The status-change reclassification is for reclassification in
>> place (as when we move from Proposed Standard to Internet
>> Standard, or from any status to Historical).  But to move
>> Experimental to Proposed Standard, it seems to me that we need
>> a new Internet Draft that Obsoletes the Experimental RFC, with
>> normal processing of that draft and publication as a new RFC.
>>
>> Barry
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 5:08 PM The IESG
>> <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> The IESG has received a request from an Area Director to make
>>> the following status changes:
>>>
>>> - RFC8321 from Experimental to Proposed Standard
>>>     (Alternate-Marking Method for Passive and Hybrid
>>>     Performance Monitoring)
>>>
>>> - RFC8889 from Experimental to Proposed Standard
>>>     (Multipoint Alternate-Marking Method for Passive and
>>>     Hybrid Performance Monitoring)
>>>
>>> The supporting document for this request can be found here:
>>>
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-rfc8321-rfc888
>>> 9-alt-mark-to-ps/
>>>
>>> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
>>> solicits final comments on this action. Please send
>>> substantive comments to the last-call@ietf.org mailing lists
>>> by 2021-09-24. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to
>>> iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
>>> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>>>
>>> The affected documents can be obtained via
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8321/
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8889/
>>>
>>> IESG discussion of this request can be tracked via
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-rfc8321-rfc888
>>> 9-alt-mark-to-ps/ballot/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> IETF-Announce mailing list
>>> IETF-Announce@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
> 
> 