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

["Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[e-mail]>]

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=[e-mail]>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 7:46 AM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Tony Li <[e-mail]>; tom petch <[e-mail]>; Acee
> Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> 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=[e-mail]> 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