On Fri, Feb 2, 2024 at 5:29 PM Rick Taylor <rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Russ,
Thank you for the prompt review, comments inline...
On 01/02/2024 22:18, Russ Housley via Datatracker wrote:
Reviewer: Russ Housley Review result: Not Ready I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. For more information, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-dtn-ipn-update-09 Reviewer: Russ Housley Review Date: 2024-02-01 IETF LC End Date: 2024-02-12 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Not Ready Major Concerns: RFC 7116 is an Informational RFC, and this document, if approved, will be published an an RFC on the standards track. It is very unusual for a standards-track RFC to update an Informational RFC. I suggest that this document and a companion document ought to obsolete RFC 7116, where the companion document separately handles all of the non-ipn topics in RFC 7116. The companion document can be an informational RFC.Yes, I can see your point. We have had this problem before in the IETF WG where we have updated IRTF documents that are almost always Informational.
Given RFC7116 only describes behaviours and registries for BPv6, and this draft only discusses BPv7, we may be able to introduce "new" registries (with exactly the same content as the CBHE registries) for BPv7, without updating the CBHE registries, therefore not officially "obsoleting" or "updating" RFC7116. This seems a lot like the tail wagging the dog, but I can see it solving a process issue. I'll discuss with Zahed for advice.
Note that this current specification updates both standard track (RFC 9171) and informational RFC (RFC7 116) , hence it at least need to be a PS. I also don't see PS updating an informational is an issues ( I would have concerned if the other way around ). I don't think right now any changes are needed here. However, I have raised this in the IESG and if there is any other conclusion than what I have assessed here, I will let you know.
//Zahed
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
