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

[Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>]

On 2008-07-26 08:15, Thomas Narten wrote:
> 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. 
> 

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