On Jun 8, 2011, at 7:18 AM, Sandra Murphy wrote: > OK, folks, so I see two possibilities mentioned here. > > (1) Retract the iana-objects draft, update it wrt prefix status changes, and > send it back to the RFC-Editor to wait until and if the IESG approves the > 6to4-to-historic draft. > > (2) Let the iana-objects draft progress, begin work on a -bis immediately. > (The -bis could introduce a registry, if that looks like a good option.) > > As I see it, process wise: > > (1) eliminates the half-skip step of publishing an RFC known to be facing > obsolesence in short order but induces a delay in IANA actions for these iana > objects. > > (2) avoids the planned obsolesence but does not impede IANA actions for these > iana objects. > > Comments from the group, please, as soon as possible.
Those of us following the discussion on the i...@ietf.org list know that it is far from clear that draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic is going to be adopted by the IETF. It has gotten a lot of push-back. Given that, #2 seems like the better option. The new draft simply needs to pull all the data from the in-queue RFC and make a registry for it. Developers follow the RFC-to-be for now, then follow the registry when it is created. > P.S. Note that there is an option (2+) which would produce the -bis so fast > (and with care to be compatible with any IESG decision on 6to4) that it would > overtake the iana-objects draft on the RFC Editor queue. :-) Which IETF have you been participating in where that kind of speed seems even remotely possible? :-( --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
