On Fri, Feb 2, 2024 at 5:29 PM Rick Taylor <r...@tropicalstormsoftware.com> 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> > <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 > >
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
