[dhcwg] Re: [Ext] Re: Roman Danyliw's No Objection o n draft-ietf-dhc-rfc8415bis-09: (with COMMENT)

Hi Roman!

 

RFC 8126 just says that we’ll mark these, without specifying how. 

 

We do want to encourage status field creation in 8126bis, so we could specify there that if you don’t create a status field for your new registry, we have these other somewhat limited options. 

 

In the meantime, encouraging people to create status fields wherever possible would be great. 

 

For what it’s worth, we don’t have a default set of status field entries to recommend, although this seems like a potentially useful thing to do. 8126bis is asking whether we should 1) define common status field entries that are already in use (“current,” the similar-sounding “active,” “provisional,” etc.) and 2) add to the very brief definitions we already have (“deprecated” and “obsolete”). 

 

Thanks,

Amanda

 

From: Roman Danyliw <[email protected]>
Date: Wednesday, April 30, 2025 at 3:10 PM
To: Amanda Baber <[email protected]>, Bernie Volz <[email protected]>
Cc: The IESG <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [Ext] Re: Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-dhc-rfc8415bis-09: (with COMMENT)

 

Thanks Amanda!

 

To be clear, I’m not unfamiliar with this convention and approach.  Is this documented somewhere?  Should we document it if not? 

 

Wondering out loud, when WGs do surgery on registries or update specs that use registries that use this convention, should we steer towards adding a more well defined status column?

 

Roman

 

From: Amanda Baber <[email protected]> 
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2025 5:56 PM
To: Bernie Volz <[email protected]>; Roman Danyliw <[email protected]>
Cc: The IESG <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Ext] Re: Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-dhc-rfc8415bis-09: (with COMMENT)

 

Hi Bernie, Roman,

 

In the absence of a status field, IANA’s approach has been to add “(OBSOLETE)” or “(DEPRECATED)” to the name/description or, if preferred, to replace the existing name/description with “OBSOLETE” or “DEPRECATED”.

 

Amanda

 

From: Bernie Volz <[email protected]>
Date: Wednesday, April 30, 2025 at 2:46 PM
To: Roman Danyliw <[email protected]>
Cc: The IESG <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: [Ext] Re: Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-dhc-rfc8415bis-09: (with COMMENT)

 

This has been added to issues tracker-https://github.com/dhcwg/rfc8415bis/issues/53 [github.com] 

 

- Bernie Volz

 

On Apr 30, 2025, at 3:36 PM, Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[email protected]> wrote:

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dhc-rfc8415bis-09: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ [ietf.org] 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-rfc8415bis/ [datatracker.ietf.org]



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you to Dale R. Worley for the GENART review.

** Section 25.
 IANA is requested to mark the IA_TA (option code 4) and UNICAST
  (option code 12) in the Option Codes table at
  <https://www.iana.org/assignments/dhcpv6-parameters> as obsolete.

  IANA is requested to mark the UseMulticast (status code 5) in the
  Status Codes table at <https://www.iana.org/assignments/
  dhcpv6-parameters> as obsolete.

How does one mark something as obsolete in a registry which does not have an explicit status column?

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]