Re: [Lsr] Dynamic Flooding on Dense Graphs - draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding

I think Experimental is a good way to go with this as well.

Thanks,
Chris.
[as wg-member]

"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> writes:

> John -
>
> Thanx for the information.
>
> I think what is relevant as regards the dynamic-flooding draft is that we may be prematurely burying it.
> It is true, as Tony has stated, that the marketplace has not shown an active
> interest in deploying this technology - but I am not yet convinced that this is
> the final disposition. As the scale of IGP networks increases and the use of
> fast-flooding is deployed, it may be that interest in dynamic-flooding is
> revived.
>
> Publishing the draft as Experimental leaves open the possibilities.
> It could still be moved to Historic somewhere down the road if there continues to be no deployment interest.
>
> I suppose it is also possible (as your post indicates) that we move it to
> historic now and find a way to move it from historic if/when the need arises -
> but I frankly find such an approach very odd.
>
> I do not know why we are in a rush to "bury this". I think Acee has raised a
> valid point - given that there was broad consensus on the protocol extensions
> themselves - that it would be good to formally preserve the draft content. I
> think Experimental is the best way to do that.
>
>     Les
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: John Scudder <jgs=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 7:46 AM
>> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com>
>> Cc: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>; tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>; Acee
>> Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>; lsr@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Dynamic Flooding on Dense Graphs - draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-
>> flooding
>>
>> Hi Les and all,
>>
>> > On Jun 13, 2022, at 2:22 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
>> <ginsberg=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > So you are suggesting that we publish something that was never actually
>> published as an RFC as a "historic RFC"?
>> >
>> > The logic of that escapes me.
>>
>> It so happens I recently became aware that this publication track is explicitly
>> considered to be OK.
>> https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/designating-rfcs-
>> historic-2014-07-20/ sez
>>
>> "An RFC may be published directly as Historic, with no earlier status to change
>> (see, for example, RFC 4870). This is usually done to document ideas that
>> were considered and discarded, or protocols that were already historic when
>> it was decided to document them. Those publications are handled as are any
>> other RFCs.”
>>
>> $0.02,
>>
>> —John
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr