Les, The market looked at the technology and decided that it was not interested. If that’s not the definition of ‘obsolete’, I don’t know what is.
Tony > On Jun 13, 2022, at 10:27 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Tony - > > "Historic" is for > > " A specification that has been superseded by a more recent > specification or is for any other reason considered to be obsolete..." > > Hard to see how that applies here. > > Although I appreciate Tom's concern, the fact that we may not be clear on how > to transition from Experimental to Standard (for example) seems to me to be a > problem to be solved outside of the context of this specific draft - not > something that should prevent us from using Experimental. > > In regards to the state of the draft, here is my summary: > > 1)There are multiple implementations of the draft > 2)I am not aware that interoperability of the implementations has been > demonstrated > 3)To the extent that interoperability could be demonstrated, I think only > centralized mode could be validated at this time > 4)Interoperability of distributed mode requires standardization of one or > more algorithms - which means the drafts defining those algorithms first have > to progress > > To me, that makes "Experimental" the right track as further work is required > before we can say that all aspects of the draft are mature enough to consider > Standards track. > > Les > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Lsr <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Tony Li >> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2022 10:12 AM >> To: tom petch <[email protected]> >> Cc: Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]>; [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Dynamic Flooding on Dense Graphs - draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic- >> flooding >> >> >> 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 > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
