Re: [Trans] Zaheduzzaman Sarker's No Objection on draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis-39: (with COMMENT)

[Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>]

Hi Zahed!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: iesg <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Zaheduzzaman Sarker via
> Datatracker
> Sent: Thursday, July 1, 2021 9:14 AM
> To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Paul Wouters
> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Zaheduzzaman Sarker's No Objection on draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis-
> 39: (with COMMENT)
> 
> Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis-39: No Objection
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email
> addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory
> paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Thanks for the efforts of this document.
> 
> I think it will be good to add section describing what is expected out of this
> experimental document. Shepherd's write up describes the intention of
> publishing this as Standard Track then WG decision to move it back to
> Experimental. I think it is worth capturing the thoughts and reasoning there
> and also set some expectations on this document for potential future
> reversions.


The WG will correct me on the full history, but the simple answer is that there is insufficient deployment experience with this draft to provide the needed confidence that it should be a PS.  At the onset of the work much more operational deployment was anticipated to validate the approach.  That didn't materialize.

Regards,
Roman