RE: BGP vs. 2385 draft

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

Well... that is always the dillemma with an ID that is
being last called to be an RFC. 
My view on it is that the ID to be Last Called contains the
text as it will be in the RFC (and in fact I think that
we IESG have already more or less agreed that we DO want
to apply the variance). So we are just Last Calling if the
community is OK with it. If so fine, doc is ready to be
published (without tweaking). If not.. then doc does not
get approved and expires in 6 months and so the "decision"
never materialized.

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Zinin [mailto:zinin@psg.com]
> Sent: woensdag 9 april 2003 19:34
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Cc: Harald Tveit Alvestrand; Steven M. Bellovin; iesg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: BGP vs. 2385 draft
> 
> 
> Bert,
> 
> Wednesday, April 9, 2003, 2:24:15 AM, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> > Mmmm.. the new abstract (as suggested by Alex) says:
> 
> >    The IETF Standards Process requires that all normative 
> references for
> >    a document be at the same or higher level of 
> standardization.  RFC
> >    2026 section 9.1 allows the IESG to grant a variance to 
> the standard
> >    practices of the IETF.  This document explains why the IESG is
> >    considering do so for the revised version of the BGP-4 
> specification
> >    that is being considered for publication as Draft Standard and
> >    normatively refers to RFC 2385, "Protection of BGP 
> Sessions via the
> >    TCP MD5 Signature Option", which is staying at the 
> Proposed Standard
> >    level of maturity.
> 
> > I wonder about the "is considering do so".
> 
> should be "is considering TO do so", btw
> 
> > I think by rthe time this doc gets published, we have 
> considered it and
> > decided. So WOuld the abstract not be better to say:
> 
> I thought it would be misleading for the ID containing the request
> for variance that we are soliciting community input for through the
> IETF LC to say that we've already done so.
> 
> We can, of course change the text to reflect the history during
> author-48 period.
> 
> Alex
> 
> 
> >    The IETF Standards Process requires that all normative 
> references for
> >    a document be at the same or higher level of 
> standardization.  RFC
> >    2026 section 9.1 allows the IESG to grant a variance to 
> the standard
> >>  practices of the IETF.  This document explains why the 
> IESG has done
> >>  so for the revised version of the BGP-4 specification 
> that has been
> >>  approved for publication as Draft Standard and 
> normatively refers to
> >    RFC 2385, "Protection of BGP Sessions via the TCP MD5 Signature
> >    Option", which is staying at the Proposed Standard level 
> of maturity.
> 
> > Thanks,
> > Bert 
> 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:harald@alvestrand.no]
> >> Sent: woensdag 9 april 2003 0:09
> >> To: Alex Zinin; Steven M. Bellovin
> >> Cc: iesg@ietf.org
> >> Subject: Re: BGP vs. 2385 draft
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> --On tirsdag, april 08, 2003 11:35:15 -0700 Alex Zinin 
> >> <zinin@psg.com> 
> >> wrote:
> >> 
> >> > Steve,
> >> >
> >> >  The revised text:
> >> >  http://psg.com/~zinin/ietf/draft-bellovin-tcpmd5app-00-rev1.txt
> >> >
> >> >  The htmlwdiff:
> >> >  http://psg.com/~zinin/ietf/variance.diff.html
> >> >
> >> 
> >> this one works for me.
> >> 
>