Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-xli-behave-ivi (The CERNET IVI Translation Design and Deployment for the IPv4/IPv6 Coexistence and Transition) to Experimental RFC

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 09:27:58 +1300

Hi,

I'm in favour of publishing this document.

I'm wondering which of the two relevant guidelines for Experimental
status in http://www.ietf.org/iesg/informational-vs-experimental.html
applies in this case.

Looking at the writeup in the tracker:
"This document presents a working example of the v4/v6 Stateless translation in
an operational network, which provides useful information for the interested
community."
I seem to see a much closer match to guidelines 2 or 3, which lead to
Informational.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

On 2009-12-05 03:43, The IESG wrote:
> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider 
> the following document:
> 
> - 'The CERNET IVI Translation Design and Deployment for the IPv4/IPv6 
>    Coexistence and Transition '
>    <draft-xli-behave-ivi-05.txt> as an Experimental RFC
> 
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action.  Please send substantive comments to the
> [email-masked] mailing lists by 2010-01-01. Exceptionally, 
> comments may be sent to [email-masked] instead. In either case, please 
> retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
> 
> The file can be obtained via
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-xli-behave-ivi-05.txt
> 
> 
> IESG discussion can be tracked via
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=17439&rfc_flag=0
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IETF-Announce mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
>

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 11:24:13 +0200

Brian,

> I'm in favour of publishing this document.

Great - thanks for the feedback!

> I seem to see a much closer match to guidelines 2 or 3, which lead to

I reviewed my e-mail archive on this topic and looked again at the 
guidelines. I think it could be either Informational or Experimental or 
even Historic. I don't think the difference is material in the grand 
scheme of things, but I do agree with you that Informational is probably 
the most fitting classification.

I will take this issue up with the IESG when they approve the document 
(the IESG can approve a document in a different category during their 
review).

Jari