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

[Paul Wouters <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, 29 Jul 2021, Roman Danyliw wrote:

>> 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.

This is correct, but also the changes to 6962 because larger than
originally expected, making the document fall a little between
Standard Track and Experiment. But in a way Transparency is more
than just an experiment, so we did not add the language on when
we consider the experiment success or fail or done, as I think
we can all agree that CT is successful and not going away.

Paul