Re: [PCN] 3-in-1 document

Couple of quick comments:

On 1)
I seem to remember that when RFC5696 was published, there was discussion about the status of this & it was agreed it should be standards track. Since 3-in-1 replaces 5696, it too should be standards track.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pcn-encoding-comparison-09#section-5 explains how we got to 3-in-1 replacing 5696. 

Incidentally, the edge behaviours moved from Informational to Experimental (not from standards track to experimental), so I don't see why this should prompt any change in status of 3-in-1.

On 3)
3-in-1 obsoletes rfc5696. If the normal practice is to declare obsoleted rfcs historic, then suggest we do that; if not, then don't.
If the 3-in-1 draft is not approved then rfc5696 is not obsolete.
If the 3-in-1 draft is experimental then rfc5696 is not obsolete - i think the 3-in-1 draft needs to be re-written as an extension of the baseline (and incidentally this is very probably non-trivial to write & non-trivial for the reader to understand)

Best wishes
phil

-----Original Message-----
From: pcn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of David Harrington
Sent: 15 March 2012 17:14
To: <pcn@ietf.org>
Subject: [PCN] 3-in-1 document

Hi,

The IESG has a few questions.

1) Since the edge behaviors have now been moved to Experimental, and
3-in-1 deals with the edge behaviors, should 3-in-1 also be Experimental?

2) (for additional information to help IESG understand) Has 3-in-1 been
implemented? Has it been used in real-world environments? Should this be
published as Experimental until it is clear it works?

3) if RFC5696 has become not recommended, should it be declared historic,
possibly independent of the status of the 3-in-1 draft?

--
David Harrington
Director, Transport Area
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Ietfdbh@comcast.net
+1-603-828-1401

_______________________________________________
PCN mailing list
PCN@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn