On 24 March 2016 at 10:32, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Cridland <[email protected]> writes: > > > Actually I'd read that as more of a recommendation than merely safe. I > > think by safe, the authors mean that no significant harm has been > > found to occur. > > What we meant to say was something along the lines of "You want to turn > this on; it'll do you good, so get on with it! You won't regret it! Now > go fix the next 100 million devices!". The current formulation in the > draft is an attempt to be slightly less colloquial about it... ;) > Well, I have to ask why, in this case, it's Experimental and not Standards-Track? Please try to explain as if I haven't read your draft and wouldn't understand it if I did, but you seem to be saying this is an applicability statement indicating you want wide deployment, but, from RFC 2026: (d) Limited Use: The TS is considered to be appropriate for use only in limited or unique circumstances. For example, the usage of a protocol with the "Experimental" designation should generally be limited to those actively involved with the experiment. If what you're saying is that you do believe this is "ready" for wide deployment, you should be publishing on the Standards Track, surely? Dave.
_______________________________________________ aqm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
