On Wed, 8 Jun 2011, Paul Hoffman wrote:
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? :-(
Hence the smiley.
--Sandy, as wg member only.
--Paul Hoffman
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
sidr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
