Re: [Sidrops] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ietf-sidrops-rov-no-rr-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

Just FYI: Had a chat with Murray — this was clearly intended to be Proposed
Standard, not Internet Standard (STD).  Brain autocorrect went "Standards
Track, so it's on the track to being an Internet Standard, nod, next…"
Lars initially noticed this, so I fixed it in the Datatracker, but we
didn't update the shepherd writeup.

Murray is happy and will clear.
W



On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 2:30 AM, Murray Kucherawy <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-sidrops-rov-no-rr-06: Discuss
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/
> handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle
> DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidrops-rov-no-rr/
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> This should be easy to resolve, but it's a necessary process check: The
> shepherd writeup says this is going for Internet Standard status, but the
> other metadata and the document itself seems to be set for Proposed
> Standard. Which is right? I believe there are other incantations that have
> to be done if the former is true.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> In addition to being confusing in terms of what status is being sought for
> this document, question 11 on the shepherd writeup was not fully answered.
>
> I think Section 7 should either be more than just the word "None" (e.g.,
> "This document specifies no actions for IANA."), or it should state that
> the section should be removed prior to publication.
>