Hi John,
At 09:35 AM 7/20/2011, John C Klensin wrote:
I believe that I have already responded to that note at least
once. A newly-constructed summary of the three issues listed
in that note follows:
(1) "SHOULD for RFC 6186". Such a normative requirement would
be a very significant downreference. It would also be a new
normative requirement, which is inappropriate when going to Full
Standard under current rules, especially since I've seen little
evidence that 6186 is widely enough deployed to justify a
requirement in a Full Standard. As you note, I suggested that
it might be appropriate to consider this if there were an
implementation report on 6186 and (at least my implication)
significant steps toward getting it to Draft Standard at least.
I have seen no evidence of progress on either of those
dimensions. I also note that RFC 6186 is not shown as Updating
4409. IMO, the proper course of action, consistent with your
advice above, is to not include an explicit normative pointer to
6186. When 6186 is updated, the revised version might well be
identified as updating 4409bis with the relevant pointers. No
action in the current document is needed unless the co-chairs
indicate that there is consensus to do something and provide
clear instructions.
RFC 6186 is a Proposed Standard and was published in March 2011. I
am not aware of any effort to move it to Draft Standard. As you
mentioned, RFC 6186 does not update RFC 4409. A normative
reference to RFC 6186 would be a downward reference. As there hasn't
been consensus for such a change and based on the current status of
RFC 6186, I recommend no action in the current document.
(2) Mentioning RFC 5451. The only comments received indicated
that this should be a matter for either 5451bis or 5322bis, not
4409. No action in the current document is needed unless the
co-chairs indicate that there is consensus to do something and
provide clear instructions.
There isn't consensus about mentioning RFC 5451 in the current document.
(3) "not able to determine a return path". I did not detect
consensus to do anything about this. If the Chairs disagree,
please advise.
After reading the YAM Charter and the WGLC comments, my advice is no
action on this.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
YAM WG co-chair
_______________________________________________
yam mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
