Angels on the head of a pin. I think that almost all the world is unaware of the different classifications and so the answer for them is moot. Yes, I know, a few official bodies do care but for Internet at large, it will make no difference.
That said, I care and think that PS is alway preferrable unless there is a good reason not to, that is, we should keep other categories, such as Experimental, for those when we really do care and want a strong marker that we can refer back to afterwards when those who do not appreciate the difference have stumbled over it. If in doubt, PS every time. Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Haberman" <[email protected]> To: "6man WG" <[email protected]>; "6man Chairs" <[email protected]>; "Barry Leiba" <[email protected]>; "Pete Resnick" <[email protected]>; "Ralph Droms" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 1:36 AM Subject: Status of draft-ietf-6man-lineid > All, > During the IESG discussion of draft-ietf-6man-lineid, the question > was raised as to its appropriate status. The WG decided to advance the > draft as Experimental since it had documented limitations and was > targeted to a limited deployment scenario. Several ADs raised the issue > that the above reasons do not necessarily make the draft inappropriate > for Proposed Standard, To quote feedback from one of the ADs (Barry Leiba): > > > "If the limitations are clearly documented and if that document can be > used to target implementations correctly, then I think PS is completely > appropriate. If experimentation is needed to *determine* the > limitations, or to determine how to implement the specification to as > not to interfere with inapplicable situations, then Experimental is best." > > In my view, there is a clear understanding of what the limitations of > this approach are and they can be clearly defined in an applicability > statement within the draft. Additionally, we know the deployment > scenario (N:1 VLAN usage in broadband networks) where this approach will > be used. > > My question is whether there is opposition or support within the > community to move the document to Proposed Standard as long as there is > a sufficient applicability statement included in the draft. Please > provide feedback to the mailing list (and the cc:'ed ADs) on this > proposed change. > > Regards, > Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
