Jefsey,
Many of us await, with great interest, the appearance of an
Internet Draft from you that explains how, with a field with a
finite (and fairly small) number of bits available, once can
carry out an arbitrary number of properly-identified
experiments. Even a discussion about how one might make an
allocation reversible --in terms of recovering or slicing up
bits that carry, well, only one bit of information-- within a
non-private network or enforce the end of an experiment so that
another could begin would be extremely interesting.
Of course, one might argue that protocols should contain,
instead of fixed-width option fields, fields of arbitrary
variable lengths, thereby eliminating the difficulties implied
above. If that is the model you would like to propose, the
Internet Draft that explains how to do it without significantly
reducing the performance of IP would be of even more interest
(several previous proposals in that area have required faster
light, which no one has yet managed to arrange).
But, either way, please put it into an Internet Draft that we
can study and, if necessary reference and preserve, rather than
continuing with email. The posting deadline is a week from next
Monday.
john
--On Thursday, 30 June, 2005 00:43 +0200 "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin"
<jefsey@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Dear Scott,
> RFCs are made to be adapted to needs. The question should be
> "what do we want?". I think the response is "to experiment".
> This means that every registry should include an
> ad-experimendam area. If the experimentation is OK it will
> permit to document the allocation of a code point without
> interrupting the experimentation. If the experimenation fails,
> then who cares? 200 mails on "IESG approval" saved each time.
>
> The main characteristics of an experimentation should be:
> community oriented (not private), reversible, not affecting
> non participants operations, no acquired rights without
> community approval, limited scope in time and space.
> Documentation is of no interest until it succeeds. This should
> not be confused with a private area: private usage is to be
> protected/separated from experimentation.
> jfc
>
>
> At 00:03 30/06/2005, Scott Bradner wrote:
>> > I agree that this would be a reasonable process, but
>> > wouldn't that be "IETF Consensus" (an entirely separate
>> > choice in RFC 2434 from IESG Approval)?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf