-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

David Meyer wrote:
...
>       It would likely be possible to develop a list of
>       questions (such as the one you mention), but experimental
>       design should not, IMO, be a part of this WG. It is not
>       only that the scope of potentially "useful experiments"
>       is effectively unbounded (I can think of a lot of
>       things), but also that building the instrument
>       (configuration) that actually measures the outcome of the
>       experiment will be in many cases non-trivial.
> 
>       My point is that your statement that you "would like the
>       WG to first write a list of useful experiments and then
>       later publish the results." is too broadly scoped. I see
>       you gave one example, the effect of delay or packet
>       drop...; actually we need a more tightly scoped
>       description even than that to build an experimental
>       design (e.g., effect on what, in what topology,
>       etc.). You get my point. 

If the purpose of the WG is to document the protocols currently in
experimental use in a group in the IETF, no BOF is needed and they seem
ready to proceed.

If the purpose of the WG is experiments, then this work clearly belongs
back on the IRTF, which is not the goal AFAICT (I bring this up only to
reinforce David's view that experiments are out of scope).

Joe

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkl2cvQACgkQE5f5cImnZrttBACcCTM2LwOfDco30GH/YCHIMkXE
0qkAnRm4p5HwbH4iFChTokcH19sC7Stt
=a2fa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area

Reply via email to