Subject: Follow up to IAB response to Robert Elz's Appeal

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:01:09 -0800

The IAB has responded to an appeal from Robert Elz of the IESG decision
to approve the IPv6 Addressing Architecture 
(draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-11.txt) by indicating that the document 
should not be published as a Draft Standard [1].  Given that the revised 
document is a significant improvement over RFC 2473, and that RFC2473 is 
badly out of date, we believe it is desirable to go ahead and publish the 
document as a Proposed Standard at this time ASAP in order to get a 
replacement to RFC2473 out.

In parallel, it would be appropriate to discuss the details of the IAB 
response and how the WG wishes to respond to the IAB recommendations.  Note 
that approving the document as PS at this time does not imply that the WG 
agrees with all of the IAB's recommendations nor does it preclude any 
particular follow-on action by the WG or IESG.  However, approval at PS is 
something that can be done relatively quickly.

Does this approach make sense to the WG?

Bob Hinden, Margaret Wasserman; IPv6 Chairs
Thomas Narten, Erik Nordmark; Internet ADs

[1] IAB, "Re: Appeal against IESG decision",
http://www.iab.org/Appeals/kre-ipng-address-arch-draft-standard-response.html 

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Alain Durand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:30:47 -0800

Bob Hinden wrote:

> (draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-11.txt) by indicating that the 
> document should not be published as a Draft Standard [1].  Given that 
> the revised document is a significant improvement over RFC 2473, and 
> that RFC2473 is badly out of date, we believe it is desirable to go 
> ahead and publish the document as a Proposed Standard at this time 
> ASAP in order to get a replacement to RFC2473 out.
>
> response and how the WG wishes to respond to the IAB recommendations.  
> Note that approving the document as PS at this time does not imply 
> that the WG agrees with all of the IAB's recommendations nor does it 
> preclude any particular follow-on action by the WG or IESG.  However, 
> approval at PS is something that can be done relatively quickly.
>

sounds to me like a sensible course of action.

    - Alain.

---

From: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 09:34:03 +0800

This approach is ok to me.

Regards,
Jordi

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bob Hinden" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 8:01 AM
Subject: Follow up to IAB response to Robert Elz's Appeal

> http://www.iab.org/Appeals/kre-ipng-address-arch-draft-standard-response.html 

*********************************
Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit
12-14 May 2003 - Pre-register at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com
Interested in participating or sponsoring ?
Contact us at [email-masked]

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:57:59 +0700

Date:        Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:01:09 -0800
    From:        Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | Does this approach make sense to the WG?

For what it's worth, that's fine by me as well (and this also doesn't
mean that I agree with all of the IAB's decision/recommendations either).

kre

ps: I have had no time to follow this WG for the past 3-4 months (since
the end of last Oct), I'm a long way behind in my reading here, I just
happened to notice this thread.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:11:30 +0100

Yes, do it. Maybe get an IABer to the WG meeting to explain.

   Brian

---

From: Derek Fawcus <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 18:05:51 +0000

> However, approval at PS is 

yeah - get it to at least PS.

DF