Subject: [dtn] Conclusions of the IESG Evalation on BPbis, BPsec, and TCPclv4

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2020 16:09:47 +0000

Hi,

The DTN documents was discussed on the IESG Telechat today. A highly relevant
issue was raised prior to the telechat. There have been significant amount of
changes since the last IETF last call a year ago. IESG have gotten some feedback
that the wider community want to have an opportunity to confirm the consensus
after substantative changes. So my conclusion in today's IESG telechat was to go
for an IETF last call prior to approval of this document. 

So the way forward for the document are the following.

1. Update all of the draft to address comments and discuss. It looks quite good,
there are few minor things, but I hope the WG and authors can get this fixed
rapidly. 

2. I will issue a new 2-week IETF last call (assuming it is not directly over
Christmas and New Year). 

3. Deal with any last call feedback. I hope there would be very little
considering the maturity of the document. 

4. Confirm with IESG and approve the document. 

I really hope this will not result in too much delay. 

Cheers

Magnus

---

From: "Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2020 20:52:58 +0000

Hi, Magnus.  I'll be happy to post an update to the bpbis draft.

At this point, the updates would be:
-	The removal of erroneous RFC-to-be references in section 10 as cited by Martin Duke.
-	The replacement text for section 4.3 that I proposed in my email of November 20.

Are we agreed that these are the changes that are needed?  Anything else?

Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: dtn <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Magnus Westerlund
Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2020 8:10 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [dtn] Conclusions of the IESG Evalation on BPbis, BPsec, and TCPclv4

Hi,

The DTN documents was discussed on the IESG Telechat today. A highly relevant issue was raised prior to the telechat. There have been significant amount of changes since the last IETF last call a year ago. IESG have gotten some feedback that the wider community want to have an opportunity to confirm the consensus after substantative changes. So my conclusion in today's IESG telechat was to go for an IETF last call prior to approval of this document. 

1. Update all of the draft to address comments and discuss. It looks quite good, there are few minor things, but I hope the WG and authors can get this fixed rapidly. 

2. I will issue a new 2-week IETF last call (assuming it is not directly over Christmas and New Year). 

3. Deal with any last call feedback. I hope there would be very little considering the maturity of the document. 

Cheers

Magnus

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2020 11:08:42 +0000

> -	The replacement text for section 4.3 that I proposed in my email of

Yes, as there appear to be no support for my idea of a "MUST NOT be removed"
flag we proceed as is. 

> Are we agreed that these are the changes that are needed?  Anything else?

Yes, you need to go through Robert Wilton and Eric Kline's comments.

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dtn/wOyF-nAkcwRNsDAp9A6K-_qqnR4
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dtn/Z86P80iTH5v3CK921PgBCc38oO4/

There are some changes to doc from these i think. Good clarifications. I fear
Eric's comment about fragmentation is quite relevant. 

Cheers

Magnus