GenDispatch Working Group R. Bonica
Internet-Draft Juniper Networks
Intended status: Best Current Practice A. Farrel
Expires: 3 January 2025 Old Dog Consulting
2 July 2024
IETF Experiments
draft-bonica-gendispatch-exp-00
Abstract
This document describes IETF experiments and provides guidelines for
the publication of Experimental RFCs.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 3 January 2025.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Bonica & Farrel Expires 3 January 2025 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IETF Experiments July 2024
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Requirements on Experimental RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1. Codepoints in Experimental RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Requirements Level Language and Keywords . . . . . . . . 4
3. Experimental Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction
Experimental RFCs in the IETF Stream describe IETF experiments. IETF
process experiments are described in [RFC3933], but this document is
concerned with protocol experiments.
An IETF protocol experiment is a procedure that is executed on the
Internet for a bounded period of time. The experiment can, but does
not always, include the deployment of a new protocol or protocol
extension. When two protocols are proposed to solve a single
problem, the IETF can initiate an experiment in which each protocol
is deployed. Operational experience obtained during the experiments
can help to determine which, if either, of the protocols should be
progressed to the standards track.
An IETF experiment must not harm the Internet or interfere with
established network operations. It must be conducted in a carefully
controlled manner (for example, using a limited domain [RFC8799]).
Furthermore, it must use protocol identifiers that do not conflict
with other protocols or experiments.
When an IETF protocol experiment concludes, experimental results
should be reported in one or more informational RFCs.
This document describes IETF protocol experiments and provides
guidelines for the publication of Experimental RFCs. Experimental
RFCs in the Independent Submissions Stream are out of scope of this
document.
2. Requirements on Experimental RFCs
An Experimental RFC must:
Bonica & Farrel Expires 3 January 2025 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IETF Experiments July 2024
* Describe the experiment in details, so that it can be replicated
by non-collaborating parties and recognised when it is seen in
deployments.
* Describe an experiment that does not harm the Internet or
interfere with its established operations.
* Include a date at which the experiment will be terminated.
* Include metrics and observations that will be collected during the
experiment.
* Include criteria by which success of the experiment will be
determined.
When two protocols are proposed to solve a single problem, the IETF
can initiate an experiment in which each protocol is deployed. In
this case, the same metrics should be collected in each experiment.
2.1. Codepoints in Experimental RFCs
[RFC8126] describes guidelines for writing IANA Considerations
sections in RFCs. It lists a number of assignment policies that
apply to codepoint registries maintained by IANA.
Experimental RFCs cannot obtain codepoints from registries or parts
of registries that are managed under the following assignment
policies:
* Standards Action
* Hierarchical Allocation
An Experimental RFC may request and be granted codepoints from
registries or parts of registries that are managed under the
following assignment policies:
* First Come First Served
* Expert Review
* Specification Required
* RFC Required
* IETF Review
* IESG Approval
Bonica & Farrel Expires 3 January 2025 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IETF Experiments July 2024
Consideration must be given to the fact that the experiment may be
temporary in nature and the protocol or protocol extensions may be
abandoned. If there is a scarcity of available codepoints in a
registry, even more caution should be applied to any codepoint
assignments.
Some registries or parts of registries are marked as "For
Experimental Use: Not to be assigned." These ranges are specifically
intended for use by protocol experiments. But assigments are not
made from them and Experimental RFCs must not document and codepoints
from such ranges. Instead, protocol implementations should allow the
codepoints to be configured so that all implementations participating
in an experiment can interoperate and so that multiple experiments
may co-exist in the same network.
Experiemts should not use Private Use registries.
Additionally, IANA will not create any new registries or sub-
registries as specified in Experimental RFCs. Experimental RFCs that
would otherwise ask for the creation of protocol registries can
simply enumerate the codepoints within the RFC.
2.2. Requirements Level Language and Keywords
An Experimental RFC describing a protocol experiment may use BCP 14
requirements level language and keywords [RFC2119] [RFC8174] to help
clarify the description of the protocol or prtocol extension and the
expected behavior of implementations.
3. Experimental Reports
Experimental Reports shoul include the following information:
* Scale of deployment
* Effort required to deploy
- Was deployment incremental or network-wide?
- Was there a need to synchronize configurations at each node or
could nodes be configured independently
- Did the deployment require hardware upgrade?
* Effort required to secure
* Performance impact of risk mitigation
Bonica & Farrel Expires 3 January 2025 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IETF Experiments July 2024
* Effectiveness of risk mitigation
* Cost of risk mitigation
* Interoperability
* Did you deploy two inter-operable implementations?
* Did you experience interoperability problems?
* Effectiveness and sufficiency of OAM mechanism
4. IANA Considerations
This document does not make any requests of IANA, but see Section 2.1
for details of the use of codepoints in Experimental RFCs.
5. Security Considerations
As this document does not introduce any new protocols or operational
procedures, it does not introduce any new security considerations
Experimental RFCs must include security and privacy considerations as
with any other RFC. As well as considering the security and privacy
implications of the protocol or protocol extensions, Experimental
RFCs should examine the implications for security and privacy of
running an experiment on the Internet.
6. Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge TBD for their review and helpful
comments.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126>.
Bonica & Farrel Expires 3 January 2025 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IETF Experiments July 2024
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.
7.2. Informative References
[RFC3933] Klensin, J. and S. Dawkins, "A Model for IETF Process
Experiments", BCP 93, RFC 3933, DOI 10.17487/RFC3933,
November 2004, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3933>.
[RFC8799] Carpenter, B. and B. Liu, "Limited Domains and Internet
Protocols", RFC 8799, DOI 10.17487/RFC8799, July 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8799>.
Authors' Addresses
Ron Bonica
Juniper Networks
Herndon, Virginia
United States of America
Email: rbonica@juniper.net
Adrian Farrel
Old Dog Consulting
United Kingdom
Email: adrian@olddog.co.uk
Bonica & Farrel Expires 3 January 2025 [Page 6]