Re: [Sat] SATP Core document has expired

[VENKATRAMAN RAMAKRISHNA <[e-mail]>]

Hi Thomas,

Thanks for the info. As I mentioned on the other thread (with Peter), I’ll update the use cases draft with new content before its expiration.

Rama

From: sat <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Thomas Hardjono
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2024 5:23 AM
To: VENKATRAMAN RAMAKRISHNA <[e-mail]>; Rafael Belchior <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Sat] SATP Core document has expired

Hi Rama, >>> That makes sense, but I thought it was an IETF requirement for an >>> unexpired copy of the draft to be present at all times on the website. Yes this is desirable, I think. I believe for a document to pass the
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
    Report Suspicious  <https://us-phishalarm-ewt.proofpoint.com/EWT/v1/PjiDSg!1e-vTR7TRvmamiWUdsEErgVYnhfOvvcM9Vi2ZuXIzWup33VadCCalKuJpR3b2tQxYWKfVsm7X5ucBt5VilCM7gdDjOktVWYSWGPk1whQ3hFvm-dULgDBVNV1I_bmaDHEJKHYzy3i_WQ$>   ‌
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
Hi Rama,

>>> That makes sense, but I thought it was an IETF requirement for an
>>> unexpired copy of the draft to be present at all times on the website.

Yes this is desirable, I think.

I believe for a document to pass the WG Last Call, all normative references to IETF specs must be to RFCs (not to drafts).


--thomas




From: sat <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of VENKATRAMAN RAMAKRISHNA <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Tuesday, January 23, 2024 at 1:21 AM
To: Rafael Belchior <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [Sat] SATP Core document has expired
That makes sense, but I thought it was an IETF requirement for an unexpired copy of the draft to be present at all times on the website.

If that’s not the case, should I defer updating the Use Cases draft until we finish discussing the recent proposals for new use cases? The current draft expires tomorrow, and I was going to submit an updated version with modified dates and references (no changes in the text otherwise).

Is there an IETF recommendation around this? Or etiquette that we are supposed to follow?

Rama

From: Rafael Belchior <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2024 8:13 PM
To: VENKATRAMAN RAMAKRISHNA <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Sat] SATP Core document has expired

Perhaps it’s better to resubmit once we incorporated everyone’s feedback (including Wes’) onto the next version. I’d say we discuss this next interim meeting (next week). Cheers, On 22 Jan 2024, at 16: 42, VENKATRAMAN RAMAKRISHNA <vramakr2@ in. ibm. com>
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
    Report Suspicious  <https://us-phishalarm-ewt.proofpoint.com/EWT/v1/PjiDSg!2M-vgr7xxBfatGYbdg8LzaoFTyIx8uWSzeF9zVx8_zKCoGS1_eeSZB7hqtZIKBlhptgx-NTaORgpqEiKEysezCA0jK4W7QL_ZpTJgcM4I6Qg$>   ‌
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
Perhaps it’s better to resubmit once we incorporated everyone’s feedback (including Wes’) onto the next version. I’d say we discuss this next interim meeting (next week).

Cheers,

On 22 Jan 2024, at 16:42, VENKATRAMAN RAMAKRISHNA <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Can one of the co-authors publish a new version so we have a canonical reference for the protocol?

Link to the expired draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-satp-core/<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-satp-core/>

Thank you,
Rama
--
sat mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sat<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sat>