Hi all, On 2/16/16 5:26 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote: > Hi Alvaro, > > as Roger pointed out there was no explicit discussion about informational vs > experimental.
I believe I suggested Informational for the address block request when I was the shepherding AD for LISP. The block management draft inherited that status when it was split out. > > Certainly if the IESG feels that experimental is more suitable (which > actually IMHO does) > we can change the document intended status for both the management and > allocation documents. I didn't think Experimental was appropriate because the intent was not to describe any experimentation in the block request draft. If the IESG believes Experimental is appropriate, I would support adding text to the document that describes the exit criteria for the experiment. > > For the dates, they can be adjusted before going in the roc editor queue. > Agreed. Brian > ciao > > L. > > >> On 16 Feb 2016, at 09:51, Roger Jørgensen <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 11:42 PM, Alvaro Retana <[email protected]> wrote: >> <snip> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> DISCUSS: >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> This document describes a set of guidelines that will be used in an >>> experiment. Why is it not an Experimental document? [I may have missed >>> the discussion in the archive.] >> >> That's a good question. This document is the management part extracted >> from the other draft so it copied the status from the other document. >> I guess the question is if both should change status to Experimental >> or if they're fine as they are? >> >> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> COMMENT: >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> In the request template, the dates should match the ones in >>> draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block: 2018 instead of 2017 and 2021 instead of 2020. >> >> They've been edited at different times, and it is a 3year experiment >> so the date will have to be adjusted in both document if they're >> approved, before they can be published. >> >> >> >> Other document is draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block >> >> -- >> >> Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE >> [email protected] | - IPv6 is The Key! >> http://www.jorgensen.no | [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
