Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-sidrops-ov-clarify-03.txt> (Origin Validation Clarifications) to Internet Standard

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2018 22:12:37 -0700

Hello,
At 03:17 PM 25-07-2018, The IESG wrote:
>The IESG has received a request from the SIDR Operations WG (sidrops) to
>consider the following document: - 'Origin Validation Clarifications'
>   <draft-ietf-sidrops-ov-clarify-03.txt> as Internet Standard

The intended status seems incorrect.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2018 22:42:53 -0700

> The intended status seems incorrect.

from the abstract

   This document is meant to clarify possible misunderstandings causing
   those mis-implementations; and thus updates RFC6811 by clarifying
   that all prefixes should be marked, and that policy must not be
   applied without operator configuration"

---

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 08:32:56 -0500

>    those mis-implementations; and thus updates RFC6811 by clarifying

6811 claims to be proposed standard, not internet standard.

-Ben

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 06:40:06 -0700

> 6811 claims to be proposed standard, not internet standard.

i am just the typist for this boiler plate bumph.  i think that i did
what the AD said.  could you and warren work it out, please?  i really
do not care, other than not editing it 42 times.

randy

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 15:29:00 -0400

> 6811 claims to be proposed standard, not internet standard.

Yup, it (clearly) should be PS - it is entirely my fault.

The draft header says: Standards Track, and I just assumed that the
status in the Data Tracker matched, but didn't actually check.

This has now been fixed in the DT. Apologies for the mistake.
W

-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 03:17:46 -0700

Hi Warren,
>This has now been fixed in the DT. Apologies for the mistake.

The better fix is to reset the Last Call.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 06:33:26 -0400

> The better fix is to reset the Last Call.

Ok, that’s fair (and a good idea).

I’ll ask the secretariat to do so...

W

> S. Moonesamy
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in
the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of
pants.
   ---maf

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 13:12:54 -0400

> I’ll ask the secretariat to do so...

New IETF LC started --
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/FFCg8Mm-XzKIib2ASa6LNSJ8XeQ

Thanks,
W

> W
>
>
>>
>> Regards,
>> S. Moonesamy
>>
> --
> I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place.
> This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants.
>    ---maf