Re: [v6ops] draft-linkova-v6ops-nd-cache-init to working group draft

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

Fred,

On 23/7/19 09:29, Fred Baker wrote:
> In yesterday's meeting, the sense of the room and a discussion of
> charters at the mike suggested that draft-linkova-v6ops-nd-cache-init
> should become a working group draft. Doing so will require 6man to
> agree to let v6ops suggest specific changes to RFC 4861 under the
> rubric of "operational solutions", as discussed in the draft and
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/105/materials/slides-105-v6ops-neighbor-cache-entries-on-first-hop-routers-operational-considerations-00;
> the argument for not kicking those out to 6man is that the authors of
> RFC 4861 are no longer in a position to approve errata to it, which
> would be the other obvious approach (I'm not sure that's true of Erik
> Nordmark, but whatever). It would also need to be considered to
> update RFC 4861.

My understanding is that, if anything, it is the relevant working groups
that maintain and accept/reject errata, rather than their authors alone.
(In fact, at the point the corresponding RFCs (at internet-draft stage)
became wg items, they became adopted by the relevant wgs). That's why
draft-ietf documents reflect the opinion of the relevant wg, rather than
that of the authors.

If a protocol needs to be updated, so be it. But that, I understand, is
what 6man is for. I can see myself reasons for wanting to do it in
v6ops. But unless I'm missing something, that's the charter of 6man,
rather than of v6ops.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492