I think Experimental is a good way to go with this as well.
Thanks,
Chris.
[as wg-member]
"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[email protected]> writes:
John -
Thanx for the information.
I think what is relevant as regards the dynamic-flooding draft is that we may
be prematurely burying it.
It is true, as Tony has stated, that the marketplace has not shown an active
interest in deploying this technology - but I am not yet convinced that this is
the final disposition. As the scale of IGP networks increases and the use of
fast-flooding is deployed, it may be that interest in dynamic-flooding is
revived.
Publishing the draft as Experimental leaves open the possibilities.
It could still be moved to Historic somewhere down the road if there continues
to be no deployment interest.
I suppose it is also possible (as your post indicates) that we move it to
historic now and find a way to move it from historic if/when the need arises -
but I frankly find such an approach very odd.
I do not know why we are in a rush to "bury this". I think Acee has raised a
valid point - given that there was broad consensus on the protocol extensions
themselves - that it would be good to formally preserve the draft content. I
think Experimental is the best way to do that.
Les
-----Original Message-----
From: John Scudder <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 7:46 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]>
Cc: Tony Li <[email protected]>; tom petch <[email protected]>; Acee
Lindem (acee) <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Dynamic Flooding on Dense Graphs - draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-
flooding
Hi Les and all,
> On Jun 13, 2022, at 2:22 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> So you are suggesting that we publish something that was never actually
published as an RFC as a "historic RFC"?
>
> The logic of that escapes me.
It so happens I recently became aware that this publication track is explicitly
considered to be OK.
https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/designating-rfcs-
historic-2014-07-20/ sez
"An RFC may be published directly as Historic, with no earlier status to change
(see, for example, RFC 4870). This is usually done to document ideas that
were considered and discarded, or protocols that were already historic when
it was decided to document them. Those publications are handled as are any
other RFCs.”
$0.02,
—John
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
