Subject: Re: [lisp] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: "jmh.direct" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 18:53:05 -0500

I don't think the future IESG would appreciate it if we told them that they must allocate if condition X is met.  Just as the initial request for a permanent code point was a judgment xall, so will the future reqest.  In fact, to write the conditiobs, we would have to copy text from a number of RFCS and then add specifics to the judgement calls those prescribe.  That does not sound like the right thing to do.
Yours,Joel

Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S® 6, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone-------- Original message --------From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <[email-masked]> Date: 2/16/2016  5:44 PM  (GMT-05:00) To: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>, Luigi Iannone <[email-masked]> Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], The IESG <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] Subject: Re: Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-12: (with
  DISCUSS and COMMENT) 
On 2/16/16, 4:37 PM, "iesg on behalf of Joel M. Halpern"
<[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

Hi!

>To phrase the experiment judgment differently, either after tree years
>there will be sufficient demonstrated value to justify a permanent
>allocation, or there won't.  It would take a strange situation to extend
>the experimental allocation (although of course we can not foresee every
>possible situation.)
>
>Since I do not expect the IESG to commit to specific criteria (other
>than those already documented in RFCs) for granting the permanent
>allocation, I don't see much that can be said.
>
>If you really want, I suppose that we could add a sentence saying that
>after the experiment, permanent allocation will be evaluated using the
>usual criteria for such requests.

The point I'm trying to make is about the evaluation of what you call
"sufficient demonstrated value".  As you say, the allocation is justified
if value is demonstrated, how is that value demonstrated?

At this point in time the allocation is being made temporarily so that an
experiment can be run.  What is the success criteria for that experiment?

Thanks!

Alvaro.

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 09:56:49 +0100

Good morning, Joel.

On 2/17/16 12:53 AM, jmh.direct wrote:
> I don't think the future IESG would appreciate it if we told them that
> they must allocate if condition X is met.  Just as the initial request
> for a permanent code point was a judgment xall, so will the future
> reqest.  In fact, to write the conditions, we would have to copy text
> from a number of RFCS and then add specifics to the judgement calls
> those prescribe.  That does not sound like the right thing to do.
>

I did not read Alvaro's message that way, but perhaps Alvaro could
clarify.  I viewed his message more as a question.  is the experiment
successful based on the number of allocations or based on what has been
done with those allocations?  Maybe both.  I will admit, I would find
quantifying that somewhat challenging.  I would imagine that future
allocations/delegations would require one or more RFCs.

Eliot