--On Wednesday, February 17, 2021 15:52 -0500 Barry Leiba
<barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> The announcement is dated 2021-02-10 and the end of the Last
>> Call is 2021-02-24. Why is the duration of the Last Call two
>> weeks instead of the four weeks required for a
>> reclassification request?
>
> This was my judgment as responsible AD: we normally do 4-week
> last calls for individual requests and two-week last calls for
> documents coming from working groups. Why would this be
> different?
>
> I do see that RFC 6410 specifies four weeks. If the community
> thinks that's necessary here, I will happily extend the last
> call and let my successor handle the status change from there.
Speaking personally, I think the issues here are subtle ones
involving process and precisely what the documents (and any
status-notices) have to say and not, e.g., whether the
fundamental characteristics of RDAP are appropriate for
advancement. I count both my concerns and SM's as just that
sort of subtle issue. Given that you --and, especially since
you are stepping down-- I trust the rest of the IESG has noticed
the RFC 6410 requirement so that we will not, I hope, have this
issue in the future, and in the interest with leaving your
successor with a minimum of loose ends that can be easily
resolved, let me suggest a compromise:
(i) for now, leave things as they are unless someone stands up
and says "I see issues here that others don't seem to and need
more time".
(ii) If there are a flurry of comments around 23 or 24 February,
ask, using both this list and IETF-Announce for anyone who needs
more time to immediately speak up.
If you don't get either, wrap this up.
However, to quibble once more...
>> There are currently two protocols for accessing registration
>> data, i.e. Whois and RDAP. Whois is still widely used.
>> There isn't any information in the about the current status
>> of Whois and its relationship with the intended Internet
>> Standard. Is the "widespread deployment" about deploying the
>> two protocols deployed side by side?
>
> We're talking about widespread deployment of RDAP -- this set
> of documents doesn't have anything to do with Whois. While we
> expect that Whois may fade away at some point, it clearly
> hasn't yet and won't soon, and there's no attempt here to
> change that.
Well, this set of documents does have something to do with Whois
because the original authors, in their wisdom, decided, not to
explain why a new registration data protocol was needed in the
abstract but to make explicit comparisons to Whois and the need
to replace it. If we were evaluating RDAP as an experiment
--normally a much lower bar than a move to Internet Standard --
it would be entirely reasonable to ask whether it had not
accomplished what it set out to accomplish and was therefore not
a success. Were RDAP not as widely deployed as it is in spite
of not replacing Whois, I'd consider that a major issue. As it
is, I think that the change notice and text be very clear but
otherwise probably not worth holding things up over.
Just my opinion, of course.
john
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
