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

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

1) Yes, we should *obviously* do this.
2) If the charter prevents that, fix the charter.
3) I'm not convinced it needs to update 4861. If what it does is explain the conditions in which an RFC2119 "SHOULD" should be ignored, that is *not* an update to the standard. To me it sounds exactly like a Best Current Practice.
4) In any case, if the IETF rules are alleged to prevent doing the obvious right thing, the IESG can vary the rules, as allowed by BCP9.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

On 23-Jul-19 20:29, 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.
> 
> Do we agree to take draft-linkova-v6ops-nd-cache-init as a working group draft?
> 
> Ron and I look through this thread next week and take the necessary action, whatever the outcome might be.
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> .
>