advancement of RFCs 5343, 5590, 5591, 5953 to Draft Standard

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

advancement of RFCs 5343, 5590, 5591, 5953 to Draft Standard

Juergen Schoenwaelder-2
Hi,

Robert has posted interoperability reports for the RFCs 5343, 5590,
5591, 5953. I like to ask the WG to review the reports and provide
feedback. My understanding so far is that the implementors did not
uncover any major problems in the RFCs and that a status change from
Proposed to Draft seems feasible without a re-publication of the
documents. Please comment if you believe my reading is incorrect and
you think a re-publication is necessary.

According to Section 6.2 of RFC 2026, we can't advance RFC 5953 before
February (RFC 5953 was published in August and a specification shall
remain at the Proposed Standard level for at least six (6) months) and
as such there is about a months left for additional input. If others
are working on implementations of one or more of these RFCs, please
consider getting in contact with Robert or the working group or the
chairs so that we can make the case for moving to Draft status even
stronger.

/js

--
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
_______________________________________________
Isms mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isms
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Ismsadvancement of RFCs 5343, 5590, 5591, 5953 to Draft Standard

Wes Hardaker-2
>>>>> On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 10:22:17 +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder <[hidden email]> said:

JS> According to Section 6.2 of RFC 2026, we can't advance RFC 5953 before
JS> February (RFC 5953 was published in August and a specification shall
JS> remain at the Proposed Standard level for at least six (6) months) and
JS> as such there is about a months left for additional input. If others
JS> are working on implementations of one or more of these RFCs, please
JS> consider getting in contact with Robert or the working group or the
JS> chairs so that we can make the case for moving to Draft status even
JS> stronger.

You actually can submit them to the IESG before February.  They can't be
published before February.  So if there is no outstanding items to do,
I'd encourage us to submit the proposal to the IESG and the RFC Editor
simply won't publish it till the due date.  Note that the SNMPv3 specs
were actually done this way.  I talked with Sean about this too, and he
was fine (when I talked with him) with submitting them in advance of the
6 month time-frame (but he's welcome to chime in saying he still agrees
or no longer does with this opinion).

Personally, I'd like to see them submitted simply to help wrap up the
todo item as there doesn't seem to be reasons to drag it out if the work
is already done.
--
Wes Hardaker
Cobham Analytic Solutions
_______________________________________________
Isms mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isms
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Ismsadvancement of RFCs 5343, 5590, 5591, 5953 to Draft Standard

Sean Turner
On 12/23/10 11:18 AM, Wes Hardaker wrote:

>>>>>> On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 10:22:17 +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder<[hidden email]>  said:
>
> JS>  According to Section 6.2 of RFC 2026, we can't advance RFC 5953 before
> JS>  February (RFC 5953 was published in August and a specification shall
> JS>  remain at the Proposed Standard level for at least six (6) months) and
> JS>  as such there is about a months left for additional input. If others
> JS>  are working on implementations of one or more of these RFCs, please
> JS>  consider getting in contact with Robert or the working group or the
> JS>  chairs so that we can make the case for moving to Draft status even
> JS>  stronger.
>
> You actually can submit them to the IESG before February.  They can't be
> published before February.  So if there is no outstanding items to do,
> I'd encourage us to submit the proposal to the IESG and the RFC Editor
> simply won't publish it till the due date.  Note that the SNMPv3 specs
> were actually done this way.  I talked with Sean about this too, and he
> was fine (when I talked with him) with submitting them in advance of the
> 6 month time-frame (but he's welcome to chime in saying he still agrees
> or no longer does with this opinion).

It's going to take 3 months (at least) for these to get published.  It's
usually 2 week IETF LC, 2 weeks to get on an IESG telechat, two months
for RFC-editor to get to it.  Starting now is fine by me.

spt

> Personally, I'd like to see them submitted simply to help wrap up the
> todo item as there doesn't seem to be reasons to drag it out if the work
> is already done.
_______________________________________________
Isms mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isms