Re: [v6ops] WG Adoption call for draft-winters-v6ops-cpe-lan-pd-04

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 14-Nov-23 09:52, Ted Lemon wrote:
> I wonder if this was a miscommunication. "An update" to me means you take the document and update it, 

In RFC Editor terminology, that is "Obsoletes:"

> not that you write a document that specifies updates to the original document.

That is "Updates:" but it's ambiguous (see draft-kuehlewind-rswg-updates-tag for the suggested fix).

> It's generally (IMHO) not a good idea to do this unless the update is very minor and the document does something else useful, or /at least/ that the update is very minor. That's not the case here.

That's probably a point that draft-kuehlewind-rswg-updates-tag should cover.

    Brian

> 
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 1:10 PM Timothy Winters <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi Ted,
> 
>     This is a question that I was thinking about last week.  When I first proposed adding LAN prefix delegation (IETF-115), I asked the v6ops working group if we should have a 7084bis or make this a second document updating 7084.  The feedback on the list and in the room was to have it be an update.
> 
>     Obviously the working group feels a little bit differently about this now with an ongoing 7084bis work starting.   I see two options:
> 
>      1. Putting out a short document on LAN prefix delegation while we work on 7084bis.   7084bis will use whatever comes out of that discussion.
>      2. Wait for 7084bis and roll this into that.
> 
>     Gabor, future host might be able prefixes per draft-ietf-v6ops-dhcp-pd-per-device.
> 
>     ~Tim
> 
> 
>     On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 12:33 PM Ted Lemon <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>         I guess the question then is why two documents?
> 
>         On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 12:25 PM Gábor LENCSE <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>             Hi Ted,
> 
>             11/13/2023 2:30 PM keltezéssel, Ted Lemon írta:
>              > I would like to see this work adopted. However, the current document
>              > appears to be a difference update to RFC7084, which I think is going
>              > to be really confusing for anyone reading it, so I think this should
>              > just be a 7084bis, not a separate document that "updates" 7084.
> 
>             There is another document to replace RFC 7084. It is:
>             https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-winters-v6ops-rfc7084bis <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-winters-v6ops-rfc7084bis>
> 
>             Thus, IMHO, draft-winters-v6ops-cpe-lan-pd-04 indeed only updates RFC 7084.
> 
>             Gábor
> 
> 
>             _______________________________________________
>             v6ops mailing list
>             [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>             https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>
> 
>         _______________________________________________
>         v6ops mailing list
>         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops