Re: [Idr] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ext-com-registry-03: (with DISCUSS)

[Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>]

Christoph, IESG, and Working Group at large,

On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 11:53:26AM +0100, Christoph Loibl wrote:
> Thank you for reviewing the document and pointing out, that these historic
> assignments seem to violate BCP RFC 3692.
> 
> I cannot speak for the WG, but personally I do not understand how RFC 5575
> (which allocated these experimental codepoints in the first place and has
> been obsoleted by RFC 8955 recently) could keep these codepoints without
> anyone questioning during the whole process (without having a hard time
> reading mailing-list archives and meeting notes). To me this seems to be a
> (rare?) organisational issue. 

I do not speak for the chairs at the time this was done.  I likely did speak
to the chairs about this given my involvement in Flowspec at my employer.
But most certainly, this happened because Experimental code points seldom
get used correctly.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/97/materials/slides-97-idr-code-point-management-02

I gave the above presentation a few times in IETF and regularly break out
the internal presentation this is based upon for training purposes.
Experimental code points often simply fail to get used correctly.

Similar conversations on the other types of allocation strategies largely
point out that trying to make things too hard also backfire.

It's for this reason that the practice within IDR over recent years has
trended toward larger first-come, first-served allocation strategies with a
large enough code point space that it's not a problem.

I'd recommend the IESG consider taking up some flavor of my presentation as
part of the core educational materials for the IETF.

-- Jeff