(Belated) Happy New Year, When can I expect a revised I-D and/or email reply addressing all the points in my AD review ?
Regards -éric PS: I will be away from the keyboard for most of January starting next week. From: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[email protected]> Date: Sunday, 7 December 2025 at 22:01 To: Juliusz Chroboczek <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: [Int-area] Re: AD review of draft-ietf-intarea-v4-via-v6-05 Hello Juliusz, Your case of any standard track document will have indeed a downref, but this is usually not an issue. And, this can be completely resolved if the IESG moves this v4-via-v6 to the downref registry once a PS I-D refers to it. I cannot obviously put words or explanations in Alia's mouth. Changing the abstract does not require another WGLC at all. Changing the technical content would though. I.e., there is no real problem. -éric From: Juliusz Chroboczek <[email protected]> Date: Sunday, 7 December 2025 at 16:08 To: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, Warren Kumari <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Re: AD review of draft-ietf-intarea-v4-via-v6-05 > First, please note that it is perfectly acceptable for a Proposed > Standard to have a normative reference to an informational / > experimental document, it is called a "down ref" That would imply that every standards track routing protocol that wants to implement v4-via-v6 needs to negotiate a downref. I'm afraid it might discourage people from implementing v4-via-v6, and I also don't think that's a good usage of the ADs' limited time. > It needs to be explicitly listed in the IETF Last Call and the IESG has > to approve the downref (this is really routine) Perhaps my experience is unusual, but that's not what I've seen: the whole reason we started the Babel WG was because Alia refused a downref. She explicitly requested that we make Babel into a Standards Track protocol if we wanted to use it in Homenet. > As written in my AD review, I am unsure that the section about intermediate > routers > sending ICMP errors belongs to this I-D, a simple reference to RFC 7404 would > suffice. If this section is kept, then the title & abstract should be updated > accordingly as the I-D would be broader than simply next hop routing. I agree, the abstract is badly written. Can you please confirm whether I'm allowed to rewrite the abstract without restarting WGLC? Thanks, -- Juliusz
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
