Tom, In this particular case, I believe the choices are Experimental or Historic. I’m fine with either.
T > On Jun 13, 2022, at 8:43 AM, tom petch <[email protected]> wrote: > > From: Lsr <[email protected]> on behalf of Acee Lindem (acee) > <[email protected]> > Sent: 10 June 2022 15:10 > > Initially, there was a lot interest and energy in reducing the flooding > overhead in dense drafts. Now, it seems the interest and energy has waned. > IMO, this draft contains some very valuable extensions to the IGPs. I > discussed this with the editors and one suggestion was to go ahead and > publish the draft as “Experimental”. However, before doing this I’d like to > get the WG’s opinion on making it experimental rather standards track. > Additionally, I know there were some prototype implementations. Have any of > those been productized? > > <tp> > The trouble with experimental is what happens next? Does it stay > experimental for ever or is there some assessment at some point when it > becomes Standards Track? What are the criteria? I am not aware of an RFC > describing such a process and the IPPM WG seemed uncertain what to do with > RFC8321 and RFC8889 when such an issue arose. > > The shepherd report for 8321 said > 'the measurement utility of this extension still is to be demonstrated at a > variety of scales > in a plurality of network conditions' > as the justification for experimental but did not state how that might later > be demonstrated. > > Tom Petch > > Thanks, > Acee > > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
