Re: [mpls] should draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label be published as a RFC on the standards track?

[Eric Gray <[e-mail]>]

Andy,

                Don’t you feel that this is just a bit of a flip observation?

                Personally I agree that RFC 2119 “language” and even a reference to RFC 2119 itself seems inappropriate in an “FYI” RFC.

                But I have been over-ridden on that before.

                I have to say, however that making something a standards track document _because_ it has RFC 2119 “language” in it is a tad extreme.

                Know another RFC that has a lot of RFC 2119 “language” in it that is not a standards track RFC?  RFC 2119…

                😊

--
Eric

From: mpls [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Andrew G. Malis
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2018 9:01 AM
To: Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [mpls] should draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label be published as a RFC on the standards track?

Loa,

There’s plenty of RFC 2119 language in the draft, so I support making this standards track.

Cheers,
Andy


On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 3:44 AM, Loa Andersson <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Working Group,

February 1st the MPLS working Group requested that draft-ietf-mpls-
spring-entropy-label should be published as an Informational RFC.

During the RTG Directorate and AD reviews the question whether the
document should instead be published as a RFC on the Standards Track
has been raised.

The decision to make the document Informational was taken "a long time
ago", based on discussions between the authors and involving the
document shepherd, on the wg mailing list. At that point it we were
convinced that the document should be progressed as an Informational
document.

It turns out that there has been such changes to the document that we
now would like to request input from the working group if we should make
the document a Standards Track RFC.

Daniele's RTG Directorate review can be found at at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label-08-rtgdir-lc-ceccarelli-2018-02-21/

All the issues, with the exception whether it should be Informational
or Standards track, has been resolved as part AD review.

If the document is progressed as a Standard Tracks document then we
also need to answer the question whether this is an update RFC 6790.

This mail starts a one week poll (ending May 9) to see if we have
support to make the document a Standards Track document. If you support
placing it on the Standards Track also consider if it is an update to
RFC 6790.

Please send your comments to the MPLS wg mailing list ( [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> ).

/Loa
for the mpls wf co-chairs

PS

I'm copying the spring working group on this mail.
--


Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Senior MPLS Expert
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: [phone]

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls