Hi, Reshad et al., thank you for the update on the proposed change of the track. When considering taking the Experimental track, it seems reasonable to check a draft that analyzes and clarifies conditions for an IETF Experiments <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bonica-gendispatch-exp/>. As you've noted, there is no known implementation. Is that right? If that is the case, can we expect that an experiment will ever happen? If none can be expected, should another track be considered?
Regards, Greg On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 2:54 PM Reshad Rahman <reshad= 40yahoo....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > BFD WG, > > At IETF120 the BFD chairs discussed with the ADs the concern of lack of > feedback during WGLC on these 3 documents. On one hand, I was uncomfortable > declaring WG consensus. OTOH delaying/preventing the work from being > published, when so much effort had been put by the authors/WG. Finally, > although there are no known implementations, the techniques in those > documents could be very useful in the future. > > So the decision was made to progress these documents as experimental. BFD > stability was already experimental, the 2 others were changed to > experimental but the diffs are minor. Thanks to Mahesh for making the > changes. > > Comments/suggestions/objections by November 15th. After that I'll start on > the shepherd write-ups. > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication/ > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers/ > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-stability/ > > > Regards, > Reshad. > > On Tuesday, July 9, 2024 at 12:58:08 PM EDT, Reshad Rahman <reshad= > 40yahoo....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > > BFD WG, > > Thanks to the authors for addressing the various comments. > > However, WGLC has been inconclusive due to a lack of comments from the WG, > therefore we can not move forward with these documents at this point. > > Regards, > Reshad. > > > > >
