Jefsey,
Many of us await, with great interest, the appearance of an
Internet Draft from you that explains how, with a field with a
finite (and fairly small) number of bits available, once can
carry out an arbitrary number of properly-identified
experiments. Even a discussion about how one might make an
allocation reversible --in terms of recovering or slicing up
bits that carry, well, only one bit of information-- within a
non-private network or enforce the end of an experiment so that
another could begin would be extremely interesting.
Of course, one might argue that protocols should contain,
instead of fixed-width option fields, fields of arbitrary
variable lengths, thereby eliminating the difficulties implied
above. If that is the model you would like to propose, the
Internet Draft that explains how to do it without significantly
reducing the performance of IP would be of even more interest
(several previous proposals in that area have required faster
light, which no one has yet managed to arrange).
But, either way, please put it into an Internet Draft that we
can study and, if necessary reference and preserve, rather than
continuing with email. The posting deadline is a week from next
Monday.
john
--On Thursday, 30 June, 2005 00:43 +0200 "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin"
<jefsey(_at_)jefsey(_dot_)com> wrote:
Dear Scott,
RFCs are made to be adapted to needs. The question should be
"what do we want?". I think the response is "to experiment".
This means that every registry should include an
ad-experimendam area. If the experimentation is OK it will
permit to document the allocation of a code point without
interrupting the experimentation. If the experimenation fails,
then who cares? 200 mails on "IESG approval" saved each time.
The main characteristics of an experimentation should be:
community oriented (not private), reversible, not affecting
non participants operations, no acquired rights without
community approval, limited scope in time and space.
Documentation is of no interest until it succeeds. This should
not be confused with a private area: private usage is to be
protected/separated from experimentation.
jfc
At 00:03 30/06/2005, Scott Bradner wrote:
I agree that this would be a reasonable process, but
wouldn't that be "IETF Consensus" (an entirely separate
choice in RFC 2434 from IESG Approval)?
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf