Re: [tcpm] Call for comments on draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc2581bis

[Mark Allman <[e-mail]>]

Wes-

> My TCPM co-chair view is that the document is blocking other things in
> the RFC editor queue with MISSREF, and since this is the last
> remaining WGLC comment that needs to be addressed on 2581bis, I think
> the WG should try to respond promptly on it.  Since the authors and
> Markku have discussed this offlist for a while, and seem to agree that
> the effect is fairly minor, waiting only a couple of weeks for
> comments to come in seems appropriate, and then issuing the update and
> sending it forth to the IESG if there seems to be rough consensus
> among the involved parties.

In fairness, I don't believe this is quite right.  I believe that the
authors and Markku all believe the overall effect will be minor.
However, I do not believe there is consensus among that set of folk
about the right course of action and that was in fact the impetus for
Ethan's note: to call the WG's attention to this lack of consensus and
get the WG's opinion on which of two sketched paths we should take.

My own view here is that the document has been in its current state for
a while, a lot of people have read it and so the default answer here
should be "no change".  I.e., unless the WG makes a strong push for a
change we should leave things alone at this point.  The question has
been on the table for a week already.  We'd very much appreciate
feedback. 

(And, we can nominally issue an I-D quickly, but another stumbling block
is this new boilerplate.  We do not believe we can issue this draft with
the language that RFC5378 requires given hat we do not believe we can
get all contributors to sign off on this (nor are we willing to do the
legwork).  We understand there is a workaround to RFC5378 but the
authors have not yet all had a chance to look this over and make sure we
are happy releasing the I-D under that boilerplate.)

allman