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

+1

At 10:30 02/03/2012, karagian@cs.utwente.nl wrote:
>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

________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe,                                BT Innovate & Design