[Gendispatch] Dispatch progress with draft-bonica-gendispatch-exp
Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Sat, 15 February 2025 14:04 UTC
Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC7BFC14CEED; Sat, 15 Feb 2025 06:04:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.101
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.101 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=olddog.co.uk
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p3goZf-L0Uy0; Sat, 15 Feb 2025 06:04:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mta6.iomartmail.com (mta6.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.156]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B944C14F5F6; Sat, 15 Feb 2025 06:04:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vs2.iomartmail.com (vs2.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.123]) by mta6.iomartmail.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 51FE4hTx019125; Sat, 15 Feb 2025 14:04:43 GMT
Received: from vs2.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F4EC4604B; Sat, 15 Feb 2025 14:04:43 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from vs2.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5385046048; Sat, 15 Feb 2025 14:04:43 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.224]) by vs2.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Sat, 15 Feb 2025 14:04:43 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V (82-69-109-75.dsl.in-addr.zen.co.uk [82.69.109.75]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 51FE4gw4009354 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 15 Feb 2025 14:04:42 GMT
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: gendispatch@ietf.org
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2025 14:04:42 -0000
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <096301db7fb2$8faa23c0$aefe6b40$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: Adt/rjEb9Km4J9liTfGpfUnC6ofz/w==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-Originating-IP: 82.69.109.75
X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=olddog.co.uk; h=reply-to :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; s=20221128; bh=s2fSHSw27k+DMET+ZxNiO JWrrpNQqlu6hyGf2HwPYXA=; b=oeBeZXS08M7aFlAJUjFM6BO8Xkb/p6WXfdzua lSpYEt5Pou6fgKN/falQs03orxkhfocsrh6yhAcdorJnYERGd766Epru7P3Wvs3u wiIceYWfYNFLfYIlcb5F5xCky08yk94I1nLfh+K7DWHCPJAGNgGg5AYwCOQTIko4 8mLAH1lAXuOdU0R1d3vof1yW8RW+5Oqcheb+zx2D/7h1I8cOg8PEIbTL3oEFVwkR CQaGeNl6x4TdpbhItH+slv24UrS7dLgL/GVFgzNWy0vPTcXL9VnayvQv5EUL66oO y5lIuZW8EZwQHeD49NQlc6HQZKJmD0DgARXy/h8LHeVgLDHVQ==
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.1.0.2090-9.0.0.1002-28352.003
X-TM-AS-Result: No--6.521-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--6.521-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.1.0.2090-9.0.1002-28352.003
X-TMASE-Result: 10--6.521200-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: UjGGZgD0m5XvXvInwhwK24KvnFrZK2UhTJDl9FKHbrlwV9sdGjRZ94gh 8Yej7yUh499/KAj831wVPEime2+RVSiuWgN8w/vLueYB1mSXzr8fpKdLJlnFuG8qkAZEGNxvQQ/ s9vEJJnejOose47rGgjkNZLEC9VXK51fWWfBkSqZ+J3gtIe0gA/lSepWcgdLP1hkP59wV7i4szC gBQ4BwRuLzNWBegCW2XC3N7C7YzrcTx6JaqfFawis3zPQeiEbe+gtHj7OwNO2J8YJgRrgXF86o7 9t/maJ5RWTcCuDywz9UpDTOSZmijG78IEmRMypl
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Message-ID-Hash: 4GR6TEQZKDSYADWA2ESYFXSH6HW3RXHB
X-Message-ID-Hash: 4GR6TEQZKDSYADWA2ESYFXSH6HW3RXHB
X-MailFrom: adrian@olddog.co.uk
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: experiment-guidance@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
Subject: [Gendispatch] Dispatch progress with draft-bonica-gendispatch-exp
List-Id: General Area Dispatch <gendispatch.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/8C0KuDqze7f1Zw69eUhAKzzl_2s>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gendispatch>
List-Help: <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:gendispatch-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:gendispatch@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gendispatch-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gendispatch-leave@ietf.org>
Hi all, We seem to be a bit stuck with https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bonica-gendispatch-exp/ The draft was presented to alldisaptch at IETF-120 as a stake in the ground. The minutes record... Chairs: Dispatch result: BoF, mailing list, more discussion, then perhaps AD sponsored. Since then we have set up a mailing list, experiment-guidance@ietf.org, to discuss the draft. We have also refined the draft a few times, and think it is pretty much cooked. Mention is made of the draft in discussion of a few experimental drafts that are in the pipe: - draft-ietf-pce-pcep-ls - draft-lee-pce-pcep-ls-optical - draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr - draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication - draft-ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers - draft-ietf-bfd-stability However, repeating probing of the IESG to find an AD sponsor have drawn a blank. I have some thoughts: - I am reluctant to take up meeting time in Bangkok with discussion of something that has already been dispatched - Holding a BoF for such a simple piece of informational guidance seems like a poor use of IETF time Does the WG/chairs have any suggestions? Do we go to the ISE because the IETF is not interested? It would not take a lot to turn this into an opinion piece (it is, in any case, not constraining on the activities of the IETF). Do we just bang the drum louder? Do we conclude that the dispatch advice coming from alldispatch/dispatch is just not so very effective? Thanks, Adrian
- [Gendispatch] Dispatch progress with draft-bonica… Adrian Farrel