addr-arch next steps

[Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>]

Below is a draft that will go to the WG later today. Anyone have
comments/issues with it?

> The IAB has responded to an appeal from Robert Elz of the IESG
> decision to approve the IPv6 Addressing Architecture
> (draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-11.txt) by indicating that the
> document should not be published as a Draft Standard [1].  Given that
> the revised document is a signficant improvement over RFC 2473, and
> that 2473 is badly out of date, we believe it is desirable to go ahead
> and publish the document as a Proposed Standard at this time ASAP in
> order to get a revised RFC out.
> 
> In parallel, it would be appropriate to discuss the details of the IAB
> response and how the WG wishes to respond to the IAB
> recommendations. Note that approving the document as a PS at this time
> does not necessarily need to imply agreement with the IAB's response
> or in anyway preclude any particular follow-on action. However,
> approval at PS is something that can be done relatively quickly.
> 
> Does this approach make sense to the WG?
> 
> [1] http://www.iab.org/Appeals/kre-ipng-address-arch-draft-standard-response.html)

Also, assuming the WG says publish at PS, what is the formal process?
My assumption is that the IAB has nullified the IESG approval at Draft
Standard per 2026 (even though the note didn't actually come out and
say this):

   If circumstances warrant, the IAB may direct that an IESG decision be
   annulled, and the situation shall then be as it was before the IESG
   decision was taken. The IAB may also recommend an action to the IESG,
   or make such other recommendations as it deems fit. The IAB may not,
   however, pre-empt the role of the IESG by issuing a decision which
   only the IESG is empowered to make.

So, if the previous decision is annulled, the IESG needs to reballot
at Proposed? Unless someone objects I'll do this just so the process
is clear.

Also, I see no reason to re-run the last call.

Thomas