Subject: RE: [newtrk] Meeting discussion of ISDs- Experimental Protocols a s core documents (outstanding)

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 15:06:18 +0200

Spencer,

> I haven't been participating in non-SIP TSV work for about a year, but 
> I can say that there have been specifications in the past that we 
> expected to see deployed at Experimental (one example being NewReno), 
> and my impression was that the routing area did this with at least 
> some changes to key routing protocols.

Would NewReno be an ISD of its own or would it be filed under TSP's
ISD? I think discussions along these lines would be best served
with realistic examples.

John

.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 07:13:04 -0600

Ah, that would be the question, wouldn't it?

So, the normal path for an experimental specification is that it 
starts out in its own ISD? ("what would the value of that ISD actually 
be?")

I agree that JohnL is asking the right question here.

Spencer

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 7:06 AM
Subject: RE: [newtrk] Meeting discussion of ISDs- Experimental 
Protocols a s core documents (outstanding)

Spencer,

John

.

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 17:49:32 +0100

> ISD? I think discussions along these lines would be best served

hmmmm.... at the risk of opening another rathole here, what about the 
extremely old terms "Required", "Recommended" and "Elective"?

I would think of NewReno being in the TCP ISD, starting out as 
"Experimental/Elective" (listed under "extensions"), and moving to 
"Proposed/Elective", and after a while perhaps being "Proposed/Recommended" 
or "Draft/Recommended"......?

But I too think that we shouldn't issue an ISD before we are ready to call 
the core document(s) a (proposed) Standard.

                   Harald

.

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 19:42:04 -0800

Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> So, the normal path for an experimental specification is that it starts 
> out in its own ISD? ("what would the value of that ISD actually be?")

No - that's "just" an RFC, IMO. When it's mature enough to be a 
standard, then it gets an ISD or gets incorporated into an existing ISD, 
IMO.

Joe

> ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email-masked]>
> Subject: RE: [newtrk] Meeting discussion of ISDs- Experimental Protocols 
> a s core documents (outstanding)
> 
> 
> Spencer,
>