On 10/05/2017 03:26, Brzozowski, John wrote: > The following needs to be addressed: > > "a BCP is whatever the sitting IESG says is a BCP" > > IMO this is subjective and does not yield a consistent experience across IESG > cohorts. For the IETF and work under the same there must be ONE definition > of BCP that can be applied uniformly and consistently over time.
There is: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-5 I don't see the problem with "best current thinking on a statement of principle or on what is believed to be the best way to perform some operations or IETF process function". Obviously the words "best" and "believed" imply a judgment call, first by the community and then by the IESG. Brian > > John > +1-484-962-0060 > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ronald Bonica <[email protected]> > Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 11:17 > To: Joel Halpern <[email protected]>, John Brzozowski > <[email protected]>, Brian Carpenter > <[email protected]>, Gunter Van de Velde > <[email protected]>, > "[email protected]" > <[email protected]>, > "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: RE: [Gen-art] draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host > > Joel, > > I think that you have hit the nail on the head. There is no clearly > documented definition of BCP. In reality, the only enforced definition is > that "a BCP is whatever the sitting IESG says is a BCP". > > So, rather than arguing the point, why don't we just ask the IESG? > > I will update the shepherds write-up noting that there was a question > about whether this document should be BCP or INFO and send the document on to > the IESG. We will defer to their judgement regarding the label. > > Ron > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Monday, May 8, 2017 8:31 PM > > To: Brzozowski, John <[email protected]>; Ron Bonica > > <[email protected]>; Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]>; > > Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) > > <[email protected]>; draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix- > > [email protected]; [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [Gen-art] draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host > > > > John, I absolutely agree that this document describes behavior that is > useful. > > And it describes that behavior clearly. > > One could, on that basis argue for PS status. > > I think it better fits as informational. > > I do not think it needs to be marked experimental. > > I do think it should be published. > > > > There are at least 3 definitions of BCP floating around out there. > > One clearly does not apply (this is not documenting a widely practiced > > current usage as far as I know.) I understand that BCPs are not > restricted to > > that. > > Another definition is a generally recommended behavior (even if folks > do not > > actually do it, cf BCP 38). I do not think that definition applies to > this > > document. > > The third, and only enforced definition, is "what the IESG says is a > BCP." Not > > a very helpful definition, but it is the actual one in use. > > > > Which is why I ended my note by saying that I leave it to the IESG. > > > > Yours, > > Joel > > > > On 5/8/17 8:04 PM, Brzozowski, John wrote: > > > Joel, > > > > > > Please send the criteria for BCP v Informational so we can all > evaluate > > accordingly. > > > > > > The document describes the *behavior* that is expected by UEs based on > > the network configuration. This was deliberate, not accidental or > assumed. I > > am not sure there is anything to disagree about, data pertaining to > device > > behavior is clear and well known. > > > > > > John > > > +1-484-962-0060 > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Joel Halpern <[email protected]> > > > Date: Monday, May 8, 2017 at 10:57 > > > To: Ronald Bonica <[email protected]>, Brian Carpenter > > > <[email protected]>, Gunter Van de Velde > > > <[email protected]>, > > > "[email protected]" > > > <[email protected]>, > > > "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > > Subject: Re: [Gen-art] draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host > > > Resent-From: <[email protected]> > > > Resent-To: <[email protected]>, Gunter Van de Velde > > > <[email protected]>, Ronald Bonica > > <[email protected]>, > > > <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, > > > <[email protected]>, Ronald Bonica <[email protected]> > > > Resent-Date: Monday, May 8, 2017 at 10:57 > > > > > > I do not think Brian's proposal addresses the issue. > > > Either this is indeed a Best / Recommended Current Practice, or > it isn't. > > > All RFCs are optional. So saying that this is optional does not > seem to > > > help. > > > > > > It seems very odd to defend the status on the basis that it was > part of > > > a compromise. > > > To me, the document still reads like a conventional informational > RFC. > > > To make it a BCP, in my view, it would have to describe the > context in > > > which this was actually a recommended behavio. I doubt we > actually > > have > > > agreement on that. > > > As far as I can tell, we do have agreement on this description of > how to > > > do this when you want to. Which is what Informational RFCs are > for. > > > > > > In the end, this is up to the IESG. > > > > > > Yours, > > > Joel > > > > > > On 5/8/17 10:28 AM, Ron Bonica wrote: > > > > Joel, > > > > > > > > Are you OK with the change that Brian recommends, below? > > > > > > > > Ron > > > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > >> From: Ron Bonica > > > >> Sent: Saturday, May 6, 2017 8:36 PM > > > >> To: 'Brian E Carpenter' <[email protected]>; Van De > > Velde, > > > >> Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <[email protected]>; > > draft- > > > >> [email protected]; > [email protected] > > > >> Subject: RE: [Gen-art] > draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host > > > >> > > > >> Wfm > > > >> > > > >> Joel, are you ok with this? > > > >> > > > >> Ron > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>> -----Original Message----- > > > >>> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[email protected]] > > > >>> Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 4:06 PM > > > >>> To: Ron Bonica <[email protected]>; Van De Velde, Gunter > (Nokia > > - > > > >>> BE/Antwerp) <[email protected]>; draft-ietf-v6ops- > > > >> unique- > > > >>> [email protected]; [email protected] > > > >>> Subject: Re: [Gen-art] > draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host > > > >>> > > > >>> s/The Best Current Practice documented in this note is/The > optional > > > >>> Best Current Practice documented in this note is/ > > > >>> > > > >>> Regards > > > >>> Brian > > > >>> > > > >>> On 06/05/2017 02:58, Ron Bonica wrote: > > > >>>> Gunter, > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Thanks much. A brief chat with Joel may clear this up. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Ron > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> -----Original Message----- > > > >>>>> From: Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) > > > >>>>> [mailto:[email protected]] > > > >>>>> Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 2:47 AM > > > >>>>> To: Ron Bonica <[email protected]>; > > > >>>>> draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix- > > > >>>>> [email protected]; [email protected] > > > >>>>> Subject: Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Hi Ron, Gen-art directorate, > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> I’m checking with John on the most optimal way forward. > While I > > am > > > >>>>> not that keen on the BCP status of the document, it was > part of a > > > >>>>> motivation to split up the original draft on the subject > discussing > > > >>>>> community wifi networks from the address related aspects. > John > > and > > > >>>>> I will have a discussion on the subject and propose a path > to > > > >>>>> resolution of > > > >>> the issue mentioned by gen-art. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> G/ > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> On 04/05/2017, 21:57, "Ron Bonica" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Folks, > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> The following is status for > draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix- > > per- > > > >> host: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> - WG last call complete > > > >>>>> - OPSDIR, GENART and INTDIR reviews complete > > > >>>>> - write-up complete > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> The following issue was raised in the GENART Review: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> " The proposed status seems questionable. We as a > community > > > >>>>> are not recommending that operators assign unique prefixes > to > > hosts. > > > >>>>> This document is saying "if you want to do that, here is a > way, > > > >>>>> using existing tools, to make that work." The document also > > > >>>>> recommends specific setting of other flags (the O flag in > the RA, > > > >>>>> for example) that are not closely coupled to the particular > topic. > > > >>>>> This looks like an ordinary Informational RFC. I would > have no > > > >>>>> concern with this > > > >>> being published with that label." > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Could the authors please address this issues. As soon > as they > > > >>>>> have done so, we can send it to the IESG for publication. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Ron > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> _______________________________________________ > > > >>>> Gen-art mailing list > > > >>>> [email protected] > > > >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
