As an author, I believe this should likely be informational. Yisong provides a fairly straightforward reasoning, which I agree with: the goal is to provide a comprehensive set of information and references that are meant to provide a basis for better decision making and understanding of using SRv6. It's a reference guide and by definition, is providing information.
nb On Wed, Jan 7, 2026 at 10:12 AM Alvaro Retana <[email protected]> wrote: > [cc’ing the SRv6Ops WG.] > > On January 6, 2026 at 1:51:39 PM, Alvaro Retana ([email protected]) > wrote: > > [Thanks Zafar for kicking off this discussion!] > > > WG/authors: > > We would like to hear opinions on Zafar's proposed change of Status for > this document, from the Standards Track to Informational. > > Please explain why you might be in favor, or against, a change in the > Status. > > We will take opinions until Jan/19, 2026. > > Thanks! > > Alvaro. > > On January 5, 2026 at 10:16:22 PM, Zafar Ali (zali) ([email protected]) > wrote: > > Hi Alvaro, chairs, authors, WG, > > I am following up on the following comments from the chairs: > "As the Shepherd, you should start a discussion on the list about this -- > including any justification for changing the current status." > > Re - Q11: What status should the document have? > > In my opinion, the document should progress as Informational (like the > case of rfc9099). > There is some normative text and BCP 14 language, but it is mostly in > restating normative language specified in existing RFCs the document cites. > Some wordsmithing can fix it, without losing any substance. > I do not think an update tag is needed. > > Given this hint from chairs, the intent of this email is to start that > discussion. > Chairs may chime in to follow up more formally/ change subject/ formal > poll, etc. > > Thanks > > > > Regards … Zafar > > > *From: *Alvaro Retana <[email protected]> > *Date: *Wednesday, December 17, 2025 at 1:49 PM > *To: *Zafar Ali (zali) <[email protected]> > *Cc: *spring Chairs <[email protected]>, > [email protected] < > [email protected]> > *Subject: *Re: New Version Notification for > draft-ietf-spring-srv6-security-08.txt > > On December 16, 2025 at 8:48:08 PM, Zafar Ali wrote: > > Hi Zafar! > > > I have submitted a Shepherd review. > > You submitted the Shepherd writeup -- thanks! > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-security/shepherdwriteup/ > > > > I have a couple of questions/comments (below). Specifically, your answer > to Q11 should be discussed on the list before starting the WGLC. > > In your review of the document, do you have any comments for the authors > to address? > > > Thanks! > > Alvaro. > > > > 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their > > reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been > > identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen > in > > subsequent reviews? > > > > I think the document will benefit from a directorate review from OPS and > > SEC areas. > > ... > > [6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics > > I will request OPS and SEC (and RTG) directorate reviews with the WGLC. > Do you have any specific items I should point out based on [6]? > > > > > 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream > > ([Best Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard] > > [13], [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this > the > > proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly > > reflect this intent? > > > > Proposed Standard is requested and indicated in the title page header. > > However, it is my opinion that the working group should discuss the > > intentional status of the document (Standards Track, informational or > BCP) > > before the handoff. > > What status should the document have? As the Shepherd, you should start a > discussion on the list about this -- including any justification for > changing the current status. > > We have discussed this document Updating (at least) rfc8402. We would > need this document to be on the Standards Track (or maybe a BCP) to do > that. The "Updates" tag is not ideal, but it is the only one we have. > Consider an "Update" if discussing the status on the list. > > > > > 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the > > intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described > > in [BCP 79][7]? To the best of your knowledge, have all required > > disclosures been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any > > relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available messages > > when applicable. > > > > Yes, reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the > intellectual > > property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations. There have been IPR call > as > > part of the progression of this draft. > > I'll poll again with the WGLC. Please include links to the mail archive > of that call when done (the IESG likes that). > > > > > 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing > > RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this > and > > are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and > discussed > > in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of > the > > document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs > is > > discussed. > > > > No. > > Based on the "Updates" discussion, this answer may need to be updated. > >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
