Skip to main content

Obsoleting the IPv6 Endpoint Identifier (EID) Option
draft-gont-intarea-obsolete-eid-option-02

Discuss


Yes

(Ron Bonica)

No Objection

(Adrian Farrel)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Pete Resnick)
(Robert Sparks)
(Russ Housley)
(Stephen Farrell)
(Stewart Bryant)

Abstain


No Record

Andrew Alston
Erik Kline
Francesca Palombini
Jim Guichard
John Scudder
Lars Eggert
Martin Duke
Murray Kucherawy
Paul Wouters
Robert Wilton
Roman Danyliw
Warren Kumari
Zaheduzzaman Sarker
Éric Vyncke

Summary: Needs a YES. Needs 10 more YES or NO OBJECTION positions to pass.

Andrew Alston
No Record
Erik Kline
No Record
Francesca Palombini
No Record
Jim Guichard
No Record
John Scudder
No Record
Lars Eggert
No Record
Martin Duke
No Record
Murray Kucherawy
No Record
Paul Wouters
No Record
Robert Wilton
No Record
Roman Danyliw
No Record
Warren Kumari
No Record
Zaheduzzaman Sarker
No Record
Éric Vyncke
No Record
Sean Turner Former IESG member
Discuss
Discuss [Treat as non-blocking comment] (2012-11-13 for -01) Unknown
This is a discuss-discuss:

If assignments for this registry are "IESG Approval, IETF Consensus or Standards Action processes" couldn't we equally as well have obsoleted it with a management item and saved some cycles?  The management item could have been it's unused let's deprecate it.

I had to chuckle that we're obsoleting an option that was defined without a draft with a draft.
Wesley Eddy Former IESG member
Discuss
Discuss [Treat as non-blocking comment] (2012-11-08 for -01) Unknown
Please stick to the marking of this option as historic, and remove all mention of potential filtering based on the presence of this option. The current document incorrectly conflates the two matters in both the abstract and security considerations.  There is no security issue identified with this option, it is merely unused in the current Internet.

I also believe the document should clearly say that nothing has been found WRONG with the option in a technical sense that would drive this deprecation; it is just simply attempting to clarify that this entry does not have the same relevance as others.
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (2012-11-14) Unknown
Note: I read version 2 of the draft.
This document cleans up an entry in the registry that points nowhere: [draft-gont-intarea-obsolete-eid-option]
So I'm in favor of that. 
Now, if there is a way to make that change without a document, even better...
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -01) Unknown

                            
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -01) Unknown

                            
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2012-11-01 for -01) Unknown
Please respond to IANA's questions in their "[IANA #615807] Last Call" note.
If you no longer have the note, you can find it in the document history in the datatracker:
   http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gont-intarea-obsolete-eid-option/history/
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2012-11-14) Unknown
I agree with Wes' discuss and the text in question should be removed. 

The 'intarea' part in the file name is not right, as this wasn't discussed there. 
So, where else was this document discussed? 
I would expect this information in the document write-up, but this information isn't there.
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -01) Unknown

                            
Ralph Droms Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2012-11-14) Unknown
Can we please just make this happen with a
management item?

I'd also be quite happy, as Brian suggests,
to leave it alone.  Although I suppose we
can undeprecate it in the future with an
IESG action, as well.
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -01) Unknown

                            
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -01) Unknown

                            
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -01) Unknown

                            
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -01) Unknown

                            
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
Abstain
Abstain (2012-11-13 for -01) Unknown
1. If this document goes forward, I agree with Wes' DISCUSS points.

2. I am abstaining because I think this is a completely unnecessary action to take.  I completely agree with the following statement from Brian Carpenter:

"I'm not sure we should do this. The base format defined by draft-ietf-nimrod-eid-00 is generic, with only an initial variant
defined for Nimrod, so it could be used for pretty much any future type of EID. I see no harm in leaving the option defined
but sleeping."