Subject: Re: [Perc] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-perc-dtls-tunnel-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2021 20:28:42 -0700

On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 9:05 PM Suhas Nandakumar <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>
>
>>> I'll follow up with Ben and the others during the next IESG telechat (in
>>> about nine hours)
>>>
>>
>> I did this just now, and he reminds me that the IESG on review of this
>> document found that it actually meets the bar for Proposed Standard, since
>> it specifies a protocol with interoperable implementations, and we were
>> wondering if the Working Group really wanted to stick with Informational.
>> The IANA question was secondary.
>>
>> So I'm happy to send it through as-is, but I wanted to get that point
>> covered first.  Unfortunately I have had very little success getting anyone
>> to answer my inquiries.
>>
>
> [Suhas]  From what I understand, authors are fine with either Standards
> track or an Informational reference. Informational was chosen with the
> intent of helping have a standard reference to enable interop and if IESG
> experts recommend the spec could be a Standards track one, we should be ok
> with it . Hope this helps
>

Well it's a question of the Working Group's preference, and the process we
follow from here.

If really nobody cares that much, then Informational it is.  I press the
button and we're done.  But if the Working Group would actually prefer
Standards Track and the IESG concurs (and so far I've heard no resistance
to indicate such), then we have to repeat the Last Call at the new status,
but probably not bother with a second ballot and just proceed (absent any
objection).

So let's do this: I'll wait a week.  If anyone pushes for the higher status
between now and October 12, I'll repeat the Last Call at Proposed Standard
and we'll figure it out from there.  If not, I'll send it to the RFC Editor
as Informational with no further handling needed by the WG or the IESG.

-MSK