Hi Deb,
>
>>> Experimental: so a working group can just declare any draft experimental?
>>> Seems odd (and apparently Med may feel the same way).
>>
>> As I said in my previous email, this is an adminstrative status. We need the
>> chairs or AD to respond to this.
>> [DC] and then you will incorporate that text in the draft?
>
> Luigi/Padma, tell me what I should write to satisfy this comment.
As I already mentionned in a previous mail, there are two things to consider:
1. As for RFC2026: The "Experimental" designation typically denotes a
specification that
is part of some research or development effort.
This document is part of a development effort to include geo-coordinates in
LISP. Is not part of an “experiment", as not all experimental RFC are
necessarily part of an experiment. It is about the maturity level of the
technology.
2. The history of LISP.
Long story short, LISP was born as a big experiment and the WG chartered only
to produce informational and experimental documents. With the deployment
experience gathered through the years, the LISP WG has rechartered to move the
most mature pieces of LISP to STD Track, but not all the pieces.
That is the reason why this document is “Experimental”.
Hope this clarifies the point.
Ciao
L.
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list -- lisp@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to lisp-le...@ietf.org
