Nicolas Williams wrote: > On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 03:13:44PM -0800, Darren Reed wrote: > >>To PSARC: >> >>So this brings up a question - how do we approve a case where: >>- the primary spec is currently a draft (an IETF one at that) >>- defined by an outside body >>- the spec may change after the project completes (unlikely) >>Part of me wants to say it should be marked as needing spec. >> >>Or do we simply say that the project defines whatever it wants >>to be its spec, use the internet draft as a reference and if/when >>the RFC becomes published and there's a change, someone >>hopefully remembers and publishes another case that updates >>this one? >> >>Ideally what I'd like to see happen is when the draft becomes >>an RFC (and if there's no specification change) is for the case >>to be updated saying that there is alignment between the RFC >>and our implementation. > > > You could wait until the IESG issues the protocol action placing the I-D > on the Standards Track, rather than waiting for it to be an RFC. > > In any case, there are *two* unexpired, individual submission I-Ds on > this topic. Both have "I-D Exists" as their status. That is definitely > not enough. The ARC should at least wait for there to be an AD > sponsoring one of these (or other) documents, and preferably there > should be some consensus somewhere about doing this. In this case I > think the best place to seek consensus would be the IETF list, or else > ask the IAB for their view on the matter. > > Nico
Erik Nordmark( who I believe is an AD) wants to see the kernel (and if possible core Solaris) not have things that prevent using Class E sooner rather than later (given that customers still use Solaris 8) I dont see the Class E address range description in the draft to be a serious problem. As I mentioned, the draft does state that 255.255.255.255 should be treated differently. Its unlikely that the content of the draft will change. I have cced Erik for his input. Sangeeta
