50 likes | 188 Views
IAB response to Robert Elz’ appeal. Document in question: “IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture” -- draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-11.txt Appeal itself: http://www.iab.org/Appeals/kre-ipng-address-arch-draft-standard.html IAB response to the appeal:
E N D
IAB response to Robert Elz’ appeal • Document in question: • “IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture” -- draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-11.txt • Appeal itself: • http://www.iab.org/Appeals/kre-ipng-address-arch-draft-standard.html • IAB response to the appeal: • http://www.iab.org/Appeals/kre-ipng-address-arch-draft-standard-response.html • Responses to the response – indicate that there was some confusion about what the IAB statement did/did not intend to convey
What the IAB response *does* say • That this instance of the document is not clear enough to be published as a Draft Standard • clarity is needed in order to ensure that implementations developed from the spec will be interoperable
What the IAB response does NOT do • The IAB response does not say that this document should not be published • The IAB response does not say that this document should not be published as Proposed Standard • In fact, the IAB response recommends publishing it as such • The IAB response does not provide *directives* to the WG or the IESG; that’s not in the IAB’s mandate
Substance, Documents and Time • The IAB is *not* challenging anything in the IPv6 addressing architecture in this response • The IAB annulled the IESG decision to move draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-11.txt to DS • A future version of the document, going through normal IETF process: • may go to DS • the IAB response provides recommendations of things to consider in fixing the lack of clarity
What the IAB anticipates • That the IESG & IPv6 WG will think about the recommendations for clarification and determine whether/how to produce a new version of the document • That the IAB can discuss to try to convey the meat of the recommendations, not get into challenge-response mode or tread into IESG space. • All further discussion – in the Working Group!