Thank you Greg and Adrian for the feedback.
Looking at the guidelines under
https://www.ietf.org/process/process/informational-vs-experimental/, points 1
to 4 indicate to me that Experimental is the right status for these documents.
> As you've noted, there is no known implementation. Is that right? If that is
>the case, can we expect that an experiment will ever happen?
That is the hope but we don't know for sure and if we do get an implementation,
we have no idea of a realistic timeline.
Regards,Reshad.
On Thursday, October 31, 2024 at 05:50:36 AM EDT, Adrian Farrel
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi all,
Thanks to Greg for calling out
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bonica-gendispatch-exp/
I would say that that draft does not “analyse and clarify conditions for an
IETF Experiment”. It’s purpose is to help guide authors of IETF Protocol
Experiments in what they should put in their documents and how they should
describe the experiments. But you might find it helpful to consider your text
in the light of that other draft.
Greg’s point about implementation is strong, but it all depends on the nature
of the experiment. If what you are examining is whether a protocol extension
can be implemented, and whether there is motivation to implement and deploy,
then it seems reasonable to go ahead. You would need to describe what
experimental results you will gather, how and when you would terminate the
experiment, and what you would do with any documents/codepoints if the
experiment concludes that the protocol extension is not needed/wanted.
Cheers,
Adrian
From: Greg Mirsky <[email protected]>
Sent: 30 October 2024 22:44
To: Reshad Rahman <[email protected]>
Cc: BFD WG <[email protected]>; [email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected]; Routing ADs <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: BFD auth status change to experimental (WAS WGLC for the 3 BFD
auth documents and IPR check)
Hi, Reshad et al.,
thank you for the update on the proposed change of the track. When considering
taking the Experimental track, it seems reasonable to check a draft that
analyzes and clarifies conditions for an IETF Experiments. As you've noted,
there is no known implementation. Is that right? If that is the case, can we
expect that an experiment will ever happen? If none can be expected, should
another track be considered?
Regards,
Greg
On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 2:54 PM Reshad Rahman
<[email protected]> wrote:
BFD WG,
At IETF120 the BFD chairs discussed with the ADs the concern of lack of
feedback during WGLC on these 3 documents. On one hand, I was uncomfortable
declaring WG consensus. OTOH delaying/preventing the work from being published,
when so much effort had been put by the authors/WG. Finally, although there are
no known implementations, the techniques in those documents could be very
useful in the future.
So the decision was made to progress these documents as experimental. BFD
stability was already experimental, the 2 others were changed to experimental
but the diffs are minor. Thanks to Mahesh for making the changes.
Comments/suggestions/objections by November 15th. After that I'll start on the
shepherd write-ups.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-stability/
Regards,
Reshad.
On Tuesday, July 9, 2024 at 12:58:08 PM EDT, Reshad Rahman
<[email protected]> wrote:
BFD WG,
Thanks to the authors for addressing the various comments.
However, WGLC has been inconclusive due to a lack of comments from the WG,
therefore we can not move forward with these documents at this point.
Regards,
Reshad.
