Hi Scott, Comments inline.....
> -----Original Message----- > From: iesg-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:iesg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Scott O Bradner > Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 4:48 PM > To: adr...@olddog.co.uk > Cc: wgcha...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Proposed IESG Statement on the Conclusion of Experiments > > encouraging a report is fine > > retracting the code points seems to add more confusion than it is worth > unless the code space is very tight We are talking about deprecating, not reusing the code point. There is currently a draft in the works that deprecates a few ICMPv4 code points. This draft illustrates the benefits of deprecation. Namely, - operators have a smaller decision to make when deciding whether to filter the deprecated ICMP message - if anybody is still writing ICMPv4 software, they don't have to fiddle with the deprecated messages Conversely, do you see any benefit in not deprecating ICMPv4 message #31. (RFC 1475 reserves this code for IPv7.) > > and I see no reason to obsolete the experimental rfc or move it to > historic status unless the report is that some bad thing happens when > you try it out - updating the old rfc is fine > I think that this is a case-by-case judgment call. In some cases (e.g., RFC 1475), the experiment is clearly over. IMO, allowing RFC 1475 to retain EXPERIMENTAL status detracts from the credibility of current experiments that share the label. Ron
