Re: [Perc] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-perc-dtls-tunnel-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 6:35 PM Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> (2) I'll also mention here so that the IESG can talk about it during our
> telechat (but with no intent to insist on a change): this document
> specifies a versioned protocol and creates a registry.  Are we happy
> with the current Informational status, as opposed to Proposed Standard?
> I do see that the topic was touched on in the shepherd writeup, but the
> treatment there did not feel especially compelling to me.
>

Thanks for catching this.  My understanding is that this document started
life seeking Proposed Standard, during which the IANA Considerations was
crafted.  It was later (around version -06) changed to Informational and
presented only as an "example" (the shepherd writeup says as much) rather
than a proposed standard, but the issue you're raising never came to light
after that transition.

I imagine the working group should decide how they want to resolve this.
If the preference is to have the registry, then perhaps the simplest thing
to do would be to return it to Standards Track, though that will
necessitate a new Last Call since the first one was for Informational.  But
if that's done and the other DISCUSS points are addressed, I suspect it
doesn't need to come back for another full IESG Evaluation.

If the preference is to keep Informational, then we do need to figure out
whether and how to handle creation of a registry for a document that's not
on the standards track.

We should, in any event, clarify what's meant by "example" in the shepherd
writeup, and possibly update the Abstract or Introduction to say something
similar.  It currently doesn't.

-MSK