On 30-Aug-21 16:25, John C Klensin wrote: > > > --On Monday, August 30, 2021 14:23 +1200 Brian E Carpenter > <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> I also strongly concur. It is very close to trivial to issue >> these two documents as I-Ds with standards track boilerplate >> and give them a 4-week last call. That would conform to our >> process and avoid an extremely confused and confusing end >> state. A report on their experimental use would be a useful >> adjunct to that last call. >> >> Maybe it would be quicker to use the normal downref mechanism, >> since draft-mirsky-bier-pmmm-oam wants it. > > Brian, > > A downref to a standards track document, especially one we > believe is stable (and maybe even deployed and interoperable) > but that no one has gone to the effort to advance is one thing. > Maybe I'm being over-rigid, but a downref to an explicitly > experimental document without even an experimental outcome > report seems to violate basic principles about stable > references. I agree it probably isn't what BCP97 intended, but there is at least one precedent in the downref registry (RFC 3973). However, I do prefer the other solution. Brian > > AFAIKT, no Last Call has been issued on draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam > (formerly draft-mirsky-bier-pmmm-oam). Why not just spin up > I-Ds to replace RFCs 8321 and 8889 and do this in an orderly > fashion? > > john > -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
