It is intended as ps, given the changes I think advancement to IS is not warrented notwithstanding wide deployment.
The duration of the last call looks to be my bad and I will have to correct that. joel On 1/6/16 8:55 AM, Mankin, Allison wrote: > Alvaro, > > The draft aims for PS, not IS. I think you've found an XML editing bug on our > part. We wouldn't expect to go IS, given this bis includes new material. So > this was a great catch. > > Thanks, > Allison > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jan 6, 2016, at 11:43, Alvaro Retana <aret...@cisco.com> wrote: >> >> Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for >> draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis-05: Discuss >> >> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >> introductory paragraph, however.) >> >> >> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html >> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >> >> >> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis/ >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> DISCUSS: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> I don’t have concerns over the technical content of this document, but I >> do have want to raise a process-related DISCUSS. >> >> The Intended RFC Status of this document is “Internet Standard”, which >> seems like a logical progression from RFC5966 (Proposed Standard). >> However, I am concerned that the proper process was not followed: >> >> 1. RFC6410 calls for “an IETF-wide Last Call of at least four weeks”, but >> the LS started on Nov/23 and ended on Dec/7, 2 weeks. >> >> 2. In looking at the archives I couldn’t find any discussion about >> changing the maturity level. >> >> 3. It also concerns me that the changes go beyond a simple revision of >> the old text. For example, there are recommendations that are completely >> new and for topics that were not even mentioned in the original (e.g. >> pipelining). >> >> >> I may have missed the discussions in the archive. Not being a DNS expert >> I may also be overestimating the changes to this document. But knowing >> that the “document was actively discussed and reviewed” and that it “had >> a broad discussion as the wording of several points were more accurately >> described” (from the Shepherd’s write up), I think that this document may >> not be ready to be an Internet Standard. >> >> The obvious solution to this DISCUSS is to change the intended status to >> Proposed Standard. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
