ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Proposed IESG Statement on the Conclusion of Experiments

2012-04-19 17:28:29
Hi Scott,

Comments inline.....

-----Original Message-----
From: iesg-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 
[mailto:iesg-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
Scott O Bradner
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 4:48 PM
To: adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk
Cc: wgchairs(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; 
iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Proposed IESG Statement on the Conclusion of Experiments

encouraging a report is fine

retracting the code points seems to add more confusion than it is worth
unless the code space is very tight


We are talking about deprecating, not reusing the code point. There is 
currently a draft in the works that deprecates a few ICMPv4 code points. This 
draft illustrates the benefits of deprecation. Namely,

- operators have a smaller decision to make when deciding whether to filter the 
deprecated ICMP message
- if anybody is still writing ICMPv4 software, they don't have to fiddle with 
the deprecated messages

Conversely, do you see any benefit in not deprecating ICMPv4 message #31. (RFC 
1475 reserves this code for IPv7.)


and I see no reason to obsolete the experimental rfc or move it to
historic status unless the report is that some bad thing happens when
you try it out - updating the old rfc is fine


I think that this is a case-by-case judgment call. In some cases (e.g., RFC 
1475), the experiment is clearly over. IMO, allowing RFC 1475 to retain 
EXPERIMENTAL status detracts from the credibility of current experiments that 
share the label.

                                                   Ron
 


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>