Re: [rsvp-dir] Consideration of Experimental CTypes

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Wed, 12 December 2012 20:31 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
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 EA23521F8A41 for <rsvp-dir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 12:31:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.718
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.718 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.881, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 fyQgS5U1i1o8 for <rsvp-dir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 12:31:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oproxy12-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy12-pub.bluehost.com [50.87.16.10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id CFEB421F88E4 for <rsvp-dir@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 12:31:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 12081 invoked by uid 0); 12 Dec 2012 20:30:18 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box313.bluehost.com) (69.89.31.113) by oproxy12.bluehost.com with SMTP; 12 Dec 2012 20:30:18 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=lXzVYw6cBubLHoq0V9c6xR1MgZza6YprEBl7dKDs5tU=; b=JYmQX8nhsAK8diu7lKkq2lSNkmRn6+Tpnqzqjf/PQ1qHoCqCr+FcdkszypsMHjhfcO3vQSLjA5SQPHdlkZ5Wu6J3oe87huasi4AZPhQtNEioQeVI27aHXINPHbFeSsp3;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:45482 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1Tiswc-0000uK-Df; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 13:30:18 -0700
Message-ID: <50C8E959.2040707@labn.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 15:30:17 -0500
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
References: <096201cdd87a$9dad1c30$d9075490$@olddog.co.uk> <50C8C7AD.1050407@labn.net> <09d101cdd894$6f4ab9a0$4de02ce0$@olddog.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <09d101cdd894$6f4ab9a0$4de02ce0$@olddog.co.uk>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net}
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
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 20:31:09 -0000

Fair enough.  My feeling is that assignment should be informed based on
the expected scope of the experiment.  Something that is likely to have
wide experimental usage, is documented in an RFC, and has a possible
outcome of moving to standards track seems like a good candidate for an
'experimental assignment'.  Something that is likely to be implemented
by 1 (or 2) independent implementations, is also documented in an RFC,
and will only be used in a tightly controlled environment, IMO, has no
reason to use assigned code points.

I think this specific case is easy, but you already know what I think of
this document...

Does this help at all?

Lou

On 12/12/2012 1:13 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
>