On 12/13/17 9:27 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzi...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
On 12/13/17 3:56 AM, Duzongpeng wrote:
In Section 1.3, if this document is intended to serve as a *historical*
reference, then why isn't then intended status "Historic" rather than
"Experimental"?
<zongpeng>There have been discussions about it among the authors, chairs,
and the ADs. Finally, the "Experimental" type is decided.
According to https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-4.2, the
historical type means:
A specification that has been superseded by a more recent
specification or is for any other reason considered to be obsolete is
assigned to the "Historic" level.
Our document is a new one, so it is not very proper for us to declare a
historical type.
Also in RFC2026, it is said that
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).
So we consider that the "Experimental" type is more suitable here.
And to avoid ambiguity, we have changed the "This experimental
document is intended to serve as a historical reference for any future work
as to the operational and deployment requirements." To
"This experimental document is intended to serve as **an archival
record** for any future work as to the operational and deployment
requirements."
</zongpeng>
Now I am more confused. This is new, rather than documenting existing
deployed practice. It is not standards track, so this is not an intent to
define something that can be deployed But it is being published as an
archive.
Was this once intended to be standards track, but without sufficient
interest or support to complete it as a standard. Is this then reflecting
that "we did a lot of work on this and want to publish it in case there is
future interest in doing something like this"?
Yup :-)
If so, that is fine. If it is something else, then it would be helpful to
have further explanation.
Yup, up until version 8 this was a Standards Track document. It got
significant review (and went though an IETF LC / IESG ballot) as that
but ran into some issues and was returned to the WG. It seems like the
interest in deploying it decreased -- but, it is still a valid use,
and interest may return in the future. Experimental might not be the
right status, but I don't really think Historic is either. It could be
Informational, but that doesn't quite feel right either.
OK. Then this makes sense. Maybe we need a new category for this sort of
thing. (I think I have another use for it.)
Thanks,
Paul
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
