Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-10

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

On 12/13/17 9:27 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> On 12/13/17 3:56 AM, Duzongpeng wrote:

>>> In Section 1.3, if this document is intended to serve as a *historical*
>>> reference, then why isn't then intended status "Historic" rather than
>>> "Experimental"?
>>> <zongpeng>There have been discussions about it among the authors, chairs,
>>> and the ADs. Finally, the "Experimental" type is decided.
>>> According to https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-4.2, the
>>> historical type means:
>>>      A specification that has been superseded by a more recent
>>>      specification or is for any other reason considered to be obsolete is
>>>      assigned to the "Historic" level.
>>> Our document is a new one, so it is not very proper for us to declare a
>>> historical type.
>>>
>>>          Also in RFC2026, it is said that
>>>      The "Experimental" designation typically denotes a specification that
>>>      is part of some research or development effort.  Such a specification
>>>      is published for the general information of the Internet technical
>>>      community and as an archival record of the work, subject only to
>>>      editorial considerations and to verification that there has been
>>>      adequate coordination with the standards process (see below).
>>>
>>>          So we consider that the "Experimental" type is more suitable here.
>>>
>>>          And to avoid ambiguity, we have changed the "This experimental
>>> document is intended to serve as a historical reference for any future work
>>> as to the operational and deployment requirements." To
>>>          "This experimental document is intended to serve as **an archival
>>> record** for any future work as to the operational and deployment
>>> requirements."
>>> </zongpeng>
>>
>>
>> Now I am more confused. This is new, rather than documenting existing
>> deployed practice. It is not standards track, so this is not an intent to
>> define something that can be deployed But it is being published as an
>> archive.
>>
>> Was this once intended to be standards track, but without sufficient
>> interest or support to complete it as a standard. Is this then reflecting
>> that "we did a lot of work on this and want to publish it in case there is
>> future interest in doing something like this"?
>>
> 
> Yup :-)
> 
>> If so, that is fine. If it is something else, then it would be helpful to
>> have further explanation.
> 
> Yup, up until version 8 this was a Standards Track document. It got
> significant review (and went though an IETF LC / IESG ballot) as that
> but ran into some issues and was returned to the WG. It seems like the
> interest in deploying it decreased -- but, it is still a valid use,
> and interest may return in the future. Experimental might not be the
> right status, but I don't really think Historic is either. It could be
> Informational, but that doesn't quite feel right either.

OK. Then this makes sense. Maybe we need a new category for this sort of 
thing. (I think I have another use for it.)

	Thanks,
	Paul