IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls] WG consensus check: RFC 7506 (IPv6 Router Alert Option) to historic

Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 11 April 2024 04:53 UTC

Return-Path: <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEDBAC14F603 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 21:53:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.094
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.094 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=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 ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yUGWFICdkkgF for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 21:53:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe2d.google.com (mail-vs1-xe2d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e2d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB4ACC14F5FD for <mpls@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 21:53:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe2d.google.com with SMTP id ada2fe7eead31-479d3ee92d2so2640186137.2 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 21:53:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1712811211; x=1713416011; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=3tmuJd7Q1uqhPct9c2iev3JulD3mjs0Ff17EFJ1ue1g=; b=Lyiv6avz4ZvCtI5HJMv3f9Wa8pnqyv4MK9Dfy059qIiPF6zC36JE/3tYzKF2BigdxX 4Av3CD/3XbCLR1Y4B2bP5xXcVOvV1WK3GiE0FZGN1DLaV0WxqF3jKMGJR3g0ORvgovAj 1TGsu28dAxB4zK+u9eLgcTOZECc97rbh3rRtu4XgpFCli/ubiLxbTU6/FH65bMJyQ242 +5cgfdO7WKhggtttud+AIa5wxonDIICsDJ4tCGLrKPr2uQtMtDmQd1OvzEN0rZQ6y6I+ H0O5F5En1lZV+emdDDK4FgdyVtxwgX5y1w+hYLX8ec/Y4wGAml0uTlSHGQM809bwsNwf Y4tQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1712811211; x=1713416011; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=3tmuJd7Q1uqhPct9c2iev3JulD3mjs0Ff17EFJ1ue1g=; b=N8m783w3G1fxRhEiqIGGEJpTZa/QGMVcmuOCAoNQzKfhOfkWHCIsPaPLr6GS9QomGS TWzIIN/C0EIOWUxg5321T1BOV4+JqUvroohxxayWcq+gcuOrDjOLAljAb3fNvM4wcVKx KT2z8GzcSGE6lus/hNZqypKPiFry/wd3G7TDmkf7+wI3nJn3yRutcYYUhWg7O22q8rIg Wz6jfhfwo2JVjI2/DVpZqba7NyQNiGzBakCbxAjm03jWcuWjXPoQRBT7v3uyaXI1eefQ hahGlLMljn/V+Q9f7JI5zTwD+Mwk20B9QVAKOwVpQEGMGidMcWNkKa1a/rb1Y0ysPJU4 Rkqg==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVC0o4jrvZBEIOdPfAPS8ee4cf0jcbz6LG1Q2cx8M7EG4ZFxzTXyNQeLSZ2jjsXqNH8Q1FIGi8sjGzyoWcn
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwJ9xiQKfXSToTqTLJ/vr6rtnqZgnrZhbu6VXTGj71pzaWdgtIG 1WoBT3NWFHCGVjdgl2o6KfKysEGDBQT6OS0Glv96VcWRSU3sJN5dWGe5/axaJ+c4PWLoowX9kJJ gI2xnb0ZS4cW870A9atFstq0aWvVuphvh
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFFMzwHx1tvukhWfm/+lP0AjL+AXJ0RGArr47ZpvTQoEtWIMyKc6tL0RyZgYIwkkyIbLoAGBfXlpxd9xG5uUUk=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:c02:b0:47a:3c4b:f827 with SMTP id x2-20020a0561020c0200b0047a3c4bf827mr24088vss.4.1712811211439; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 21:53:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <19F1FC07-F79B-44A6-A604-372729C42CA4@tony.li> <CAB75xn4QFiNXxBNhKR0cSnSW1kwn-JLXexpmuv8kQwxV4Kwbcw@mail.gmail.com> <E88F74E0-DCA9-4036-AFE6-08C8DF55841D@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <E88F74E0-DCA9-4036-AFE6-08C8DF55841D@gmail.com>
From: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 10:22:54 +0530
Message-ID: <CAB75xn79S6iGXZODgtC_FttsHMGUt81faDOido+rPUU2F=16rA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Carlos Pignataro <cpignata@gmail.com>
Cc: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>, mpls <mpls@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d347650615caef0b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/Qwk4OQYQ_tuHpYyrdgDz1zDH7VU>
Subject: Re: [mpls] WG consensus check: RFC 7506 (IPv6 Router Alert Option) to historic
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 04:53:36 -0000

Hi Carlos,

On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 2:34 AM Carlos Pignataro <cpignata@gmail.com> wrote:

> Tony,
>
> I also support moving RFC 7506 to historic — as one of the authors of RFC
> 7506.
>
> Dhruv,
>
> One question regarding your review of draft-ietf-mpls-lspping-norao-08.
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-iesg-statement-on-designating-rfcs-as-historic-20140720/ mentions
> three ways to classify a document as Historic. It seems options 2 and 3 can
> be done with an I-D (option 1 via an AD). What is the need to move it to
> Historic *before* and in order to allow draft-ietf-mpls-lspping-norao
> progressing?
>
>
Dhruv: The earlier version of the draft had text in the I-D which was
marking RFC 7506 as historic (in the same way one uses obsolete - "It
reclassifies RFC 7506 as Historic"). My review pointed that out and asked
the authors to make a change ("this document explains why RFC 7506 has
been reclassified
as Historic.")

Option 2/3 also requires a status change document that is created by
the AD.
I think this check on the WG list is a precautionary check before the AD
creates the status change doc and issues an LC.

Thanks!
Dhruv



> Thanks,
>
> Carlos.
>
>
> On Apr 3, 2024, at 2:51 AM, Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, I support moving RFC 7506 to Historic.
>
> As one of the reviewers of draft-ietf-mpls-lspping-norao-08 [1], this
> needs to be done before we can progress the I-D.
>
> Thanks!
> Dhruv
> [1]
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-mpls-lspping-norao-06-rtgdir-lc-dhody-2024-02-05/
>
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 10:31 PM Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li> wrote:
>
>>
>> [WG chair hat: on]
>>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> It has been proposed that we transition RFC 7506, "IPv6 Router Alert
>> Option for MPLS Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)” to
>> Historic.
>>
>> This note starts a two-week consensus check on this change. Please
>> reply-all with:
>>
>>         “Yes, I support moving RFC 7506 to Historic”
>>
>> or
>>
>>         “No, I do not support moving RFC 7506 to Historic”
>>
>> This poll will close at 12:01 PM PDT 16 Apr 2024.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Tony
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> mpls mailing list
>> mpls@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email