IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Toby Moncaster <toby.moncaster@cl.cam.ac.uk> Tue, 13 March 2012 10:23 UTC

Return-Path: <tm444@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: pcn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pcn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0ADEA21F8661 for <pcn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 03:23:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.549
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8AR0nlZMszaN for <pcn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 03:23:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppsw-50.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-50.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.150]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 352C121F86AD for <pcn@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 03:23:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-SpamDetails: not scanned
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/
Received: from ravage.cl.cam.ac.uk ([128.232.1.17]:53655) by ppsw-50.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.157]:25) with esmtpsa (PLAIN:tm444) (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) id 1S7OtO-0000BZ-sf (Exim 4.72) (return-path <tm444@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Tue, 13 Mar 2012 10:23:46 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
From: Toby Moncaster <toby.moncaster@cl.cam.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <580BEA5E3B99744AB1F5BFF5E9A3C67D13A06B4A1E@HE111648.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 10:23:46 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <086ECCBC-B2FF-4E48-827C-DE5B9BF89772@cl.cam.ac.uk>
References: <CB840802.1F0F8%ietfdbh@comcast.net> <1331613507.23822.6.camel@tachyon> <580BEA5E3B99744AB1F5BFF5E9A3C67D13A06B4A1E@HE111648.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
To: Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257)
Sender: "T. Moncaster" <tm444@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
Cc: pcn@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [PCN] IESG feedback from 3-in-1 encoding/ encoding comparison
X-BeenThere: pcn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: PCN WG list <pcn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pcn>, <mailto:pcn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pcn>
List-Post: <mailto:pcn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pcn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn>, <mailto:pcn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 10:23:51 -0000

I guess I have to stop equivocating on this…

I am actually in favour of publishing these as historical (with the caveat that they are only worth expending a few man-hours effort on).

Like Steve I hadn't realised that could be done, but as it seems fairly normal procedure it seems like the right option for these drafts. I am also prepared to put a small amount of effort into the process. My hope would be that historical documents need a good deal less scrutiny and hence these can be published more or less as they are in the new -02 versions I posted last night.

Toby


On 13 Mar 2012, at 07:32, <Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de> wrote:

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email