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

[Timothy Winters <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ted and Brian,

Thanks, at the time I was thinking this was an update to 7084 Routers for
supporting prefix delegation on the LAN.  Do we want to continue this
document as an RFC, dropping the update or just roll it into 7084?

Regards,
Tim

On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 9:14 PM Brian E Carpenter <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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
>