All,
During the IESG discussion of draft-ietf-6man-lineid, the question
was raised as to its appropriate status. The WG decided to advance the
draft as Experimental since it had documented limitations and was
targeted to a limited deployment scenario. Several ADs raised the issue
that the above reasons do not necessarily make the draft inappropriate
for Proposed Standard, To quote feedback from one of the ADs (Barry Leiba):
"If the limitations are clearly documented and if that document can be
used to target implementations correctly, then I think PS is completely
appropriate. If experimentation is needed to *determine* the
limitations, or to determine how to implement the specification to as
not to interfere with inapplicable situations, then Experimental is best."
In my view, there is a clear understanding of what the limitations of
this approach are and they can be clearly defined in an applicability
statement within the draft. Additionally, we know the deployment
scenario (N:1 VLAN usage in broadband networks) where this approach will
be used.
My question is whether there is opposition or support within the
community to move the document to Proposed Standard as long as there is
a sufficient applicability statement included in the draft. Please
provide feedback to the mailing list (and the cc:'ed ADs) on this
proposed change.
Regards,
Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
