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

From: Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2021 06:13:53 -0700

Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis-39: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

---

From: Roman Danyliw <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 18:28:35 +0000

Hi Zahed!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: iesg <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Zaheduzzaman Sarker via
> Datatracker
> Sent: Thursday, July 1, 2021 9:14 AM
> To: The IESG <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Paul Wouters
> <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Zaheduzzaman Sarker's No Objection on draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis-
> 39: (with COMMENT)
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email
> addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory
> paragraph, however.)
> 
> 

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.

Regards,
Roman

---

From: Paul Wouters <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 14:43:10 -0400 (EDT)

> 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 th…

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