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