Re: [PCN] IESG feedback from 3-in-1 encoding/ encoding comparison

While I clearly prefer egress node based pcn policy decisions, not
requiring any signaled feedback to policy decision points, I don't
object to have both drafts as historic RFCs. But I don't want to
work on them.

Regards,

Ruediger

-----Original Message-----
From: pcn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Steven Blake
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 5:38 AM
To: David Harrington
Cc: <pcn@ietf.org>; <toby.moncaster@cl.cam.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [PCN] IESG feedback from 3-in-1 encoding/ encoding comparison

On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 20:10 -0400, David Harrington wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I hope I parsed your  double negatives appropriately.
> I was suggesting that having a normative reference to an expired draft
> could be problematic.
>
> I see that one of the drafts was revised as Historic .
> Is the WG decision to publish these as Historic or let them disappear?
> The IESG needs to know.

I thought RFCs were re-categorized as Historic?  I didn't realize that
an RFC could be published as Historic right off the bat.

I'm initiating a 3-day WGLC to determine whether to publish
draft-ietf-pcn-psdm-encoding-02.txt and
draft-ietf-pcn-3-state-encoding-02.txt
as Informational/Historic RFCs (terminating EOB Thursday 3/15).

Please send comments to the list ASAP.

Regards,

// Steve

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