Subject: narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary: updating an IAB document

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:15:56 -0400

There were some comments in earlier mail and at the Philly session
saying essentially: 3177 is an IAB document (actually it was a joint
IAB/IESG document) and therefore the IAB needs to change it and the WG
shouldn't (or can't) be the one to do this.

I've had some informal conversations with I* members about this and
the impression I got was they'd actually prefer this be a WG
document. If it is a regular IETF document, both the IESG/IAB will
have a chance to review and have input. But there is no need for those
organizations to initiate the document or be the primary drivers for
it.

If the IAB ends up wanting its name on the document or have some other
text included (i.e, to somehow give it the weight needed to updated
3177), we can have that discussion later. But I think first and
foremost, this document should be an IETF document, since it is
intended to be an IETF recommendation.  That means having it come up
through a WG is just fine.

Having said all that, I will raise the issue again to see if anything
has changed in how best to process this document. 

Thomas

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 19:22:31 +1200

> has changed in how best to process this document. 

Note that 3177 actually says:

"3. Address Delegation Recommendations

   The IESG and the IAB recommend ..."

However, as we've now got more clarity on the various RFC streams,
and probably a clearer relationship with IANA than in 2001,
I don't think there's much doubt that this should be handled
as a regular IETF document.

The draft doesn't list an intended status. Are you thinking
of anything stronger than Informational?

   Brian