Re: [dbound] The Fate of DBOUND

[Kurt Andersen <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 5:50 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>> Andrew has suggested that SOPA be published as an experimental RFC, and
>> Casey asked why shouldn't ODUP be published also. It would be a vast
>> disservice if they were progressed differently, and if
>> draft-levine-dbound-dns wasn't treated the same way.
>>
>> Proposal: the WG stays open, there is a near-immediate WG Last Call on
>> all three protocol documents in order to collect a last round of editorial
>> and technical (not design) comments, and then all three are moved to Alexey
>> for AD-sponsored as Experimental. That does include an IETF Last Call and
>> IESG review, but Alexey can cover that. (This is assuming that Alexey is
>> willing to do this.)
>>
>
> I would support this if there was with each (including Jiankang's draft)
> some indication of how the experiment would be run: Who's going to build
> the code, who's going to run services that include the new data, who's
> going to run services that try to use the new data, how will the
> effectiveness and operational cost be determined, who will collect the
> results and observations, to where will they be reported, etc.  I don't
> want Experimental to be used as some kind of open-ended consolation prize.
> (See also RFC2026 and https://www.ietf.org/iesg/
> informational-vs-experimental.html.)
>

What about publishing an experimental design spec along with the four
drafts? That could put a framework around the entire process and perhaps
avoid some of the challenges that SPFbis had when trying to move from
experimental to standards track. The WG could become the manager of the
experiment for a designated duration and responsible for collecting and
publishing the results.

--Kurt