Brian,
I'm guessing that Jari's comment is because of the notion that documents
published as Experimental RFCs should include (unless it's totally
obvious) some discussion of how their success or failure will be
evaluated.
That's part of it.
That doesn't IMHO mean that the WG is actually responsible
for the experiment.
That is indeed possible. What I am saying that the work on experiments
is required. We could decide that the work happens elsewhere. However, I
think we've already demonstrated that its too easy to focus on protocol
bits in this space. I'm concerned that we'll forget the other parts. An
analogy would be promising to develop security later/elsewhere...
That being said, I'm not necessarily opposed to agreeing that we need
steps a through z in this space and then ensuring that we have different
groups responsible for the different steps, particularly if the key
external expectations were explained in the charter. I still think that
some steps other than the pure protocol specifications should fall on
the proposed group. Its not just all about fun writing specifications,
the group also needs to take a real share of the more difficult tasks :-)
It's difficult in this case because the goal is to make the Internet
scale much bigger than it is today, and that would be quite an
experiment ;-)
Brian, you know very well that we can test and evaluate new technology
in various ways before its deployed.
Jari
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
