Re: [rsvp-dir] Consideration of Experimental CTypes

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Wed, 12 December 2012 18:13 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: rsvp-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rsvp-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F324421F88A7; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 10:13:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.535
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.535 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.064, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ag6NpLhMhwuq; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 10:13:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (asmtp1.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.248]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E88C321F889C; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 10:13:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qBCIDpuU029636; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 18:13:51 GMT
Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qBCIDokh029623 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 12 Dec 2012 18:13:51 GMT
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: "'Lou Berger'" <lberger@labn.net>
References: <096201cdd87a$9dad1c30$d9075490$@olddog.co.uk> <50C8C7AD.1050407@labn.net>
In-Reply-To: <50C8C7AD.1050407@labn.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 18:13:48 -0000
Message-ID: <09d101cdd894$6f4ab9a0$4de02ce0$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQJX2XRHeySJav+drd/UQIT+bKpQMAJGDaUWlu9E1BA=
Content-Language: en-gb
Cc: iesg@ietf.org, rsvp-dir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rsvp-dir] Consideration of Experimental CTypes
X-BeenThere: rsvp-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
List-Id: RSVP directorate <rsvp-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rsvp-dir>, <mailto:rsvp-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rsvp-dir>
List-Post: <mailto:rsvp-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rsvp-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsvp-dir>, <mailto:rsvp-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 18:13:55 -0000

Hi Lou,

Well, obviously I want to resolve this particular document, but it would be nice
to use the generic solution.

All experiments are in some sense private. The pint of experimental code point
ranges is to describe what happens when the code points are seen in the wild and
to discourage squatting.

It sounds like what you are suggesting is that they should not document values
and, within the limits of their experiment, they should squat on some values.

A

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net]
> Sent: 12 December 2012 18:07
> To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
> Cc: rsvp-dir@ietf.org; iesg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [rsvp-dir] Consideration of Experimental CTypes
> 
> Adrian,
> 	Is this a general question or one that is focused on a specific
> experiment?  If an experiment is to take place privately, as this one
> is, is there any need for an assignment?
> 
> Lou
> 
> On 12/12/2012 10:08 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> > Hi RSVP-Directorate,
> >
> > The IESG is looking at draft-kumaki-murai-l3vpn-rsvp-te during IESG
evaluation
> > and post-IESTF last call.
> >
> > The document is intended to be Experimental, and wants to carry out its
> > experiment by adding some CTypes to existing CNums. However, the IANA
> registry
> > observes...
> >
> >> For Class Numbers that pre-date [RFC3936] (specifically, 0, 1, 3-25,
> >> 30-37, 42-45, 64, 65, 128-131, 161-165, 192-196, and 207), the
> >> default assignment policy for new Class Types is Standards Action,
> >> unless a Standards Track or Best Current Practice RFC supercedes this.
> >
> > What is your view of the intention? Is the purpose to block experimentation
on
> > existing CNums? How should experiments be carried out?
> >
> > An option, I suppose is to replicate the CNums into Experimental CNums and
> > include the experimental CTypes there.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Adrian
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rsvp-dir mailing list
> > rsvp-dir@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsvp-dir
> >
> >
> >
> >