[LAC-TF] Sobre como mantener problemas forever (Fwd: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard)

[Fernando Gont]

[Background: se esta realizando el IETF LC del documento en cuestion,
que es la "Arquitectura de direccionamiento IPv6"]


La logica de este mail es genial: "el texto que no te gusta ha sido
estandar por 20 años, y es inapropiado cambiarlo en el contexto de mover
esta especificacion a full standard".
(<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxL9IzJ2Nkg>)

mm... que tal, como filosofia, hacer las cosas bien? Y si eso implica
que el documento no se puede mover a full standard.... que asi sea!

Ah, no... cierto... debemos mover todo IPv6 a full standard, para
venderle a la gente que es un protocolo maduro. :-))

Y si hay algo en un RFC que esta mal, pero arreglarlo nos impediria
dicha movida, entonces... no arreglemos nada... porque está "out of scope"

Saludos,
Fernando


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version
6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard
Date: 	Tue, 21 Feb 2017 09:49:32 +0900
From: 	Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo at google.com>
To: 	Job Snijders <job at ntt.net>
CC: 	6man WG <ipv6 at ietf.org>, draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis at ietf.org,
IETF-Discussion Discussion <ietf at ietf.org>, 6man-chairs at ietf.org



On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 8:57 AM, Job Snijders <job at ntt.net
<mailto:job at ntt.net>> wrote:

    ps. The "Write a draft" argument is weak at best, since we are already
    are discussing a draft (called 'draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt'),
    which is in IETF Last call, which means it is in a place to discuss the
    contents of that draft. No reason to kick the can down the road.


I'm sorry, but that's really how it is. The text you dislike has been
the standard for almost 20 years, and is it inappropriate to change it
in the context of reclassifying this document from draft standard to
Internet standard.