Behcet, Lucas isn't talking about the status of the drafts, he's suggesting that folks experiment with the proposals before we discuss their adoption. I support this. The question of which track will only apply when the wg is considering a draft for adoption, and it can be modified after adoption too. There will be a time for this bikeshed too, just not yet.
- jana On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 7:53 AM Behcet Sarikaya <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Lucas, > > I think your offer is a good step forward. Thanks. > > But I am unable to understand why you want to restrict the intended status > to Experimental? > > BTW I checked all 3 multipath drafts and all of them ask for standards > track status. > > What is wrong with multipath that warrants downgrading its status? > > Behcet > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 12:30 PM Lucas Pardue <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hey Spencer, >> >> On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 6:00 PM Spencer Dawkins at IETF < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi, Lucas, >>> >>> I agree - sorry if I was unclear. My suspicion, to be confirmed or >>> overturned, is that "several multipath use cases" may not mean "all of the >>> proposed multipath use cases". >>> >>> Using my two categories above, I'll be looking especially closely to see >>> if a single multipath QUIC design can address use cases in both categories. >>> >> >> Thanks for the clarification. As an individual, I think you and I are in >> general agreement, turning "unknown unknowns" into "known tradeoffs and >> demarkations " seems a nice next step to keep the conversation moving. >> >> Cheers >> Lucas >> >
