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

Michael Menth <menth@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> Fri, 02 March 2012 09:51 UTC

Return-Path: <menth@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>
X-Original-To: pcn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pcn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA7EF21F8B2A for <pcn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Mar 2012 01:51:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.942
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.942 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.141, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HELO_MISMATCH_DE=1.448]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gQIvVUqvg7jl for <pcn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Mar 2012 01:51:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx5.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de (mx5.Informatik.Uni-Tuebingen.De [134.2.12.32]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B910821F8B29 for <pcn@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Mar 2012 01:51:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx5.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 633E75316 for <pcn@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Mar 2012 10:51:01 +0100 (MET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-tuebingen.de
Received: from mx5.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx5.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7bLlVXEoJGcG for <pcn@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Mar 2012 10:50:58 +0100 (MET)
Received: from zcs-pu.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de (zcs-pu.Informatik.Uni-Tuebingen.De [134.2.12.61]) by mx5.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 562DF5222 for <pcn@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Mar 2012 10:50:58 +0100 (MET)
Received: from [134.2.11.131] (chaos.Informatik.Uni-Tuebingen.De [134.2.11.131]) by zcs-pu.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 665BF17F5BC0 for <pcn@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Mar 2012 10:50:57 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <4F509804.1020307@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2012 10:51:00 +0100
From: Michael Menth <menth@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:10.0) Gecko/20120129 Thunderbird/10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pcn@ietf.org
References: <9C874ADA-1419-4AF4-B075-47FEDA98E999@cl.cam.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <9C874ADA-1419-4AF4-B075-47FEDA98E999@cl.cam.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PCN] IESG feedback from 3-in-1 encoding/ encoding comparison
X-BeenThere: pcn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: PCN WG list <pcn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pcn>, <mailto:pcn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pcn>
List-Post: <mailto:pcn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pcn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn>, <mailto:pcn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2012 09:51:04 -0000

Hi Toby,

I am also in favor of option 1.

Kind regards,

     Michael

Am 02.03.2012 10:45, schrieb Toby Moncaster:
> 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

-- 
Prof. Dr. habil. Michael Menth
University of Tuebingen
Faculty of Science
Department of Computer Science
Chair of Communication Networks
Sand 13, 72076 Tuebingen, Germany
phone: (+49)-7071/29-70505
fax: (+49)-7071/29-5220
mailto:menth@uni-tuebingen.de
http://kn.inf.uni-tuebingen.de