> On 14 Apr 2016, at 4:17 AM, Stephen Kent <[email protected]> wrote: > > I didn't attend the IETF meeting, but I did listen to the Wednesday SIDR > session, at > which the issue was raised as to whether the BGPSec RFC should be standards > track > or experimental. >
I was in the room, but did not speak to this topic. > I believe standards track is the right approach here. I consulted the oracle of RFC2026 and read the following: A Proposed Standard specification is generally stable, has resolved known design choices, is believed to be well-understood, has received significant community review, and appears to enjoy enough community interest to be considered valuable. However, further experience might result in a change or even retraction of the specification before it advances. This seems to fit well, including the caveats at the end. On the other hand: The "Experimental" designation typically denotes a specification that is part of some research or development effort. Such a specification is published for the general information of the Internet technical community and as an archival record of the work, subject only to editorial considerations and to verification that there has been adequate coordination with the standards process (see below). Which seems to fall short. The exercise of RFC publication of BGPSec is more than archival, and the process has been much more than a cursory exercise of coordination with the SIDR WG. While BGPSec may, or may not, enjoy ubiquitous deployment in tomorrow’s Internet, that future uncertainty applies to most of the IETF’s work, and that consideration should not preclude its publication as a Proposed Standard, as I interpret RFC2026. Geoff _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
