I did ask for this thread to be general. No problem if you
want to discuss your (least) favourite protocols here,
but please change the subject line...
Thanks
Brian
Andrew Newton wrote:
On Feb 18, 2006, at 11:39 AM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Given the
From: Eliot Lear [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
That overlooks the fact that often the protocol is written up after
the experiment, the results of which are described elsewhere.
The main ongoing experiments are of the form: 'I believe that the
protocol
Phil,
Experimental seems inappropriate if really what is going on is that
there is no consensus as to how to do something. If the RFC documents
existing practice and won't break anything (and in particular won't
break anything needlessly), then I would say another attempt via
independent
JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
the situation you describe is RFC 3066 Bis situation.
No. As far as I'm concerned you can publish your draft
announced for early 2005 whenever it pleases you.
You can also create your very own language name system
organized like DNS with multiple roots and
Behalf Of Frank Ellermann
Intentionally disrupting other running experiments or
breaking standards is also dubious.
Not necessarily.
One of the most important uses of Experimental is to document the
minority position when a working group gets its cranium embedded in its
posterior. In a
Behalf Of Eliot Lear
It would seem to me that the purpose of an experimental RFC
is to let people perform and participate in (rather public)
experiments on the Internet. A reasonable standard for
experimental is that there be a thesis and a procedure so
that the experiment can be
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
That overlooks the fact that often the protocol is written up after the
experiment, the results of which are described elsewhere.
The main ongoing experiments are of the form: 'I believe that the
protocol approach described in this document to address real
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
One of the most important uses of Experimental is to document
the minority position when a working group gets its cranium
embedded in its posterior. In a significant number of cases
the minority position has turned out to be right.
So here you'd say let the
On Feb 18, 2006, at 11:39 AM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Given the impressive lack of success of BEEP vs SOAP it would
be much better for the IESG to formally recognize that this
attempt to ratify a 'me too' protocol in 9 months has
backfired and is now harming IETF
At 17:39 18/02/2006, Frank Ellermann wrote:
And if a simple solution how both sides could coexist without
worldwide upgrade stunts is possible, but one side refuses to
consider this, then it's malice.
Dear Frank,
the situation you describe is RFC 3066 Bis situation. There is no
problem for
Christian Huitema wrote:
For the IETF, there is a tension between two goals: protocols that are
reviewed and documented, so there can be multiple implementations; and
protocols that have a high quality so they run very well on the
Internet. If the IETF focuses a lot on quality and makes it too
Peter Dambier wrote:
Still they have nameservers and they happily communicate with
each other without ICANN even nowing about their existence.
Out of touch with reality.
regards
joe
Cheers
Peter and Karin
At 16:06 15/02/2006, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
When considering some recent
JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
Dear Brian,
ICANN ICP-3 document called for a DNS test-bed to carry experiments in
a given framework (to test various DNS evolutions including the end of
the root). The document lists interesting criteria/conditions. Some
are related to the DNS (non profit,
On 2/15/2006 12:19 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
There are two different potential intentions to 'Experimental':
1. to conduct an experiment, as Eliot notes below, i.e.,
to gain experience that a protocol 'does good' 'in the wild'
2. to gain experience that a protocol does no harm 'in the wild'
Brian,
It would seem to me that the purpose of an experimental RFC is to let
people perform and participate in (rather public) experiments on the
Internet. A reasonable standard for experimental is that there be a
thesis and a procedure so that the experiment can be repeated,
observations can be
On 2/15/06, Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When considering some recent appeals, the IESG discovered that
we have very little guidance about the meaning of experiments
in relation to Experimental RFCs.
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3160.txt
What's wrong with the definition that
There are two different potential intentions to 'Experimental':
1. to conduct an experiment, as Eliot notes below, i.e.,
to gain experience that a protocol 'does good' 'in the wild'
2. to gain experience that a protocol does no harm 'in the wild'
I think of IETF Experimental track as being
I believe if the community does not have confidence that the protocol will
actually work on the Internet, then we are experimenting. I think this
definition would cover a number of protocols we would now consider for
Proposed Standard (rather than Informational), and pushes us back towards
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
we do not know what constitutes an acceptable experiment on
the Internet.
Maybe something that doesn't harm folks who don't participate.
For whatever reasons, maybe because they don't know about the
experiment.
focus on the general issue rather than the specifics of
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006, william(at)elan.net wrote:
Just by itself without last call experiment is probably ok when
you have some new concept that needs to be tested and documented
and its use should would cause any significant problems for anything
else.
This was supposed to be:
Just by
Dear Brian,
ICANN ICP-3 document called for a DNS test-bed to carry experiments
in a given framework (to test various DNS evolutions including the
end of the root). The document lists interesting criteria/conditions.
Some are related to the DNS (non profit, ultimate agreement by the
21 matches
Mail list logo
