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

[[e-mail]]

All,

When we took the draft-ietf-mpls-lspping-norao through the wglc, RTG-Dir
review, shepherd write-up, and IETF LC, the text was in the draft to make
RFC 7506, when it hit the IESG, the Int AD (Éric Vyncke) was very clear
that we had to use Option 1. So Greg and I wrote a text to be used for
Option 1. ANd sent that to Jim and Eric.

What happens now is that Jim (he was not our AD during most of the earlier
process) want to make sure that the working group is comfortable with
making RFC 7506 Historic. In my my mind this check is strictly not
necessary, we have wg and IETF consensus documented in WGLV and and IETF LC.
But better safe than sorry,

I have been (almost) through the Option 1 process once, but I'm still not
clear what happens or why it is better than putting "make rfc zzzz" in the
draft that documents why it is made historic.

Maybe we could invite one of the ADs to come to an interim of a f2f and
explain and give us pointers to where the document is documented.

/Loa


> Hi Carlos,
>
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 2:34 AM Carlos Pignataro <[e-mail]>
> 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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 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
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> mpls mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>