Re: [PCN] IESG feedback from 3-in-1 encoding/ encoding comparison

Just a correction, lots of RFCs refer to internet drafts.

I don't think Adrian's comment was one about the mechanics of references, but what the status is of these other encodings.
So the solution is simple, the comparison doc spells out (more) clearly that they were ones we thought about, recorded here for posterity, but are now no longer being pursued - in favour of 3-in-1

<< It appears that there are a number of alternative encoding being 
proposed as documented in this I-D, draft-ietf-pcn-3-state-encoding, 
draft-ietf-pcn-psdm-encoding, etc., and as discussed in 
draft-ietf-pcn-encoding-comparison. It isn't clear to me whether these
encodings are being proposed to co-exist, to be used by different 
operators depending on specific environments, or whether they are being
floated to see which one gets more market-place support.>>

-----Original Message-----
From: pcn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of karagian@cs.utwente.nl
Sent: 02 March 2012 10:30
To: toby.moncaster@cl.cam.ac.uk; pcn@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [PCN] IESG feedback from 3-in-1 encoding/ encoding comparison

Hi,

I agree with Toby that Option 1 is probably the best one to choose!

Best regards,
Georgios

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pcn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Toby Moncaster
> Sent: vrijdag 2 maart 2012 10:45
> To: pcn
> Subject: [PCN] IESG feedback from 3-in-1 encoding/ encoding comparison
> 
> Adrian Farrel is keen to find out what the WG intentions are regarding the
> "other" WG encoding drafts. Just to remind everyone, the original idea was
> to have the baseline encoding and a set of 3 experimental encodings that
> built on it. Then Bob got RFC6040 published and we decided to push 3-in-1
> encoding as the main standard. This left the other experimental encodings in
> limbo. They are:
> 
> draft-ietf-pcn-psdm-encoding-01 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pcn-
> psdm-encoding-01>
> 
> draft-ietf-pcn-3-state-encoding-01 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-
> pcn-3-state-encoding-01>
> 
> These are both cited in the encoding comparison draft which poses some
> potential problems. Firstly we are not meant to refer to IDs in RFCs, secondly
> these have both long expired so will eventually disappear from any archives,
> thirdly I believe Michael may still want to use PSDM experimentally?
> 
> There would seem to be 3 possible courses of action:
> 
> 1) We ask for these to be published as historical RFCs so they can be
> referenced from encoding comparison
> 2) we ask for these to be published as experimental schemes so they can be
> referenced and can be used
> 3) we remove all reference from the encoding comparison
> 
> OPtion 1 is probably the easiest as (hopefully) they would not need too much
> updating. Option 2 requires more work on the drafts (in light of the fact we
> are obsolete RFC5696 which they both depend on), but would at least hold
> the door open to future work. Option 3 partially defeats the point of the
> encoding comparison document.
> 
> I have a very slight preference for option 1, but what do other people think?
> 
> Toby
> _______________________________________________
> PCN mailing list
> PCN@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn
_______________________________________________
PCN mailing list
PCN@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn