[pim] Ketan Talaulikar's No Objection on draft-ietf-pim-zero conf-mcast-addr-alloc-ps-12: (with COMMENT)

Ketan Talaulikar has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pim-zeroconf-mcast-addr-alloc-ps-12: 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/ 
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-pim-zeroconf-mcast-addr-alloc-ps/



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

Thanks to the authors and the WG for their work on this document.

There is an overarching question at the back of my mind on why the WG wishes to
publish this document as an RFC when it has already adopted multiple documents
related to solutions that supposedly address this problem space
(draft-ietf-pim-updt-ipv6-dyn-mcast-addr-grp-id (in IETF LC),
draft-ietf-pim-ipv6-zeroconf-assignment, draft-ietf-pim-gaap (experimental)).
Just curious ... perhaps the WG can just decide not to publish this as an RFC
and instead continue their work-in-progress solutions while keeping this draft
as a guidance?

There is a difference between documenting and publishing as an RFC. I don't see
the long term benefit of publication of the document given the state of the
solution work. There are plenty of examples where such work is adopted but not
published as an RFC.

Anyway, this was not a technical point and I will leave this to the WG and the
responsible AD's call.



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