Re: [dbound] The Fate of DBOUND

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

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 just had dinner and a beer with Pete so I sure wish I'd seen this first
so we could've discussed it.  Therefore, speaking only for myself at the
moment:

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.)

Absent that, we could consider Informational, or people can feel free to
avail themselves of the Independent stream or the DISPATCH path, or
whatever publication route they wish.  In the alternative, if somewhere
down the line it's clear critical mass has finally appeared, the group
could be rechartered and reactivated.

-MSK