-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 All,
Dave Thaler wrote: > Joe Touch wrote: >>> I think it is clear that there are several hard questions in this >> space, >>> and we simply do not know whether, e.g., some of the mapping ideas >>> actually work well in real life. My belief is that finding out >> requires >>> not just implementation, but also well planned trials, experiments, >>> simulation, or measurements. Otherwise its too easy to focus on >>> relatively minor protocol details and miss the big picture. >> >> Absolutely. THAT step - setting up the experiments, trials, etc., seems >> outside the scope of this WG, however. It's hard to talk about those >> trials and experiments absent a documented protocol, however, which is >> why this seems like a very useful step to everyone. > > I disagree that it's out of scope. Specifically, if a doc is put > forward as experimental, it is very helpful to state things like what > the purpose of the experiment is, what the success criteria are, how > long the experiment is expected to run for, etc. These sorts of things > are appropriate in experimental documents (e.g., RFC 2770), especially > when it is known what the potential issues are that one wants to > experiment with. RFC2270 describes an experiment. LISP WG is writing the protocols as experimental; the experiment to evaluate LISP would be written as a separate document (IMO, informational in that case, probably out of the RRG). Joe -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkl6RYMACgkQE5f5cImnZrvyvgCgnyuK3Yvejrht+P1wZFbGlQGn JuEAoMpcnbeOWZrEedbn74sBCNdak8UU =6z18 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
