Lars & 6man,
(Sorry about the slow turn-around here... I spent last week attending
to non-IETF business, I'm afraid. Bad time for the boss to go
skiiing...)
This document is an AD-sponsored individual submission, and is
intended for publication as an Informational RFC on the IETF stream.
As you know, I originally wanted to publish this document on the
standards track. That was my preference; the authors were ambivalent
with respect to Standards track vs. Informational. Based on the
results of the IETF Last Call, I was convinced that I had overstepped,
and am now requesting publication as an Informational RFC.
(Publication would be on the IETF stream, as opposed to an independent
submission to the RFC Editor).
A question has also been raised regarding decisions made by the IESG
on this document. IMHO, the IESG has made no *decisions* with respect
to this document. Individual ADs have entered positions on this
document, and a final decision is still pending. My request for the
last call in 6man is based on my *interpretation* of other ADs'
comments and discusses, which
indicated that additional community input was needed before they would
be entirely comfortable with this approach. Based on the wg response,
I hope that we will be able to resolve the outstanding concerns within
the IESG and achieve consensus.
My apologies to the authors and the wg about the confusion... I
suspect my imprecise use of 2026 language when describing the
discussion on a telechat is at the heart of this confusion. I am
looking forward to the results of the wg's consideration of this
specification.
Thanks,
Tim Polk
On Mar 16, 2009, at 9:42 AM, Lars Eggert wrote:
Tim,
can you please clarify to me and 6man what the status of this
document is? First it was AD-sponsored PS, then AD-sponsored Info,
and now Ran says it's not an IETF document at all anymore?
Thanks,
Lars
Begin forwarded message:
On 16 Mar 2009, at 03:53, Pekka Savola wrote:
Actually, this is being proposed as an IETF RFC (as opposed to say,
RFC-editor RFC) (you can see this by e.g. looking at the Evaluation
record in the datatracker.). It seems to be an individual submission
through an area director (Tim Polk).
Well, if that's true, and it is not obviously true to me,
then that wasn't our idea, but instead the IESG's idea.
For the record, the draft authors are quite happy for this to be
a non-IETF Informational RFC, since that's what we already thought
was happening.
Originally, the Security AD wanted to persue Proposed Standard,
which is how it got into I-D Tracker, and had an IETF-wide Last Call,
but then more recently the IESG consensus was that this was not
standards-track material, so now the document is intended to be
Informational.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
