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

[Steven Blake <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, 2012-03-02 at 11:05 +0000, [e-mail] wrote:

> 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.>>

+1

I think publishing the abandoned encoding drafts as RFCs would just
confuse a situation that is going to be confusing enough with RFC5696
and 3-in-1 both extant.  Plus, it's extra load on the IESG and the
gen-art folks.


Regards,

// Steve