Hi Warren,
At 08:13 AM 01-01-2021, Warren Kumari wrote:
Just the fact that there was this much process needed to move the
document from the original status of "Informational" to "BCP".
The document was originally IETF LCed as Informational on 2020-08-26,
and went through IESG Eval on 2020-10-22.
During IESG Evaluation a number of ADs said that the document seemed
much more like BCP material - it contains best current practices.
The previous Last Call [1] was for the draft to
be published as a Proposed Standard.
"Downgrading" status is easy, but "upgrading" requires lots of process
-- I had to send t the document back to the WG[0] so that it can be
re-WGLCed to confirm that the V6OPS WG agrees with BCP (consensus was
declared) , and then it needs another IETF LC (which is what is
happening now), and then it needs another IESG evaluation, and then it
finally goes to the RFC Editor. This all adds ~4 months of delay...
Ok.
The "joke" was that there are process elves which feed on process, and
are excited for all of the paper-shuffling, etc required for this
change - sorry that it wasn't clearer...
There were three Area Directors who filed
"process objections". There were some good
points raised as comments by Éric. I could not
find any response to those comments on the mailing list.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
1.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announc
e/_qgHcW0cgtPz29hjQV-1v-MBjI0/
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
