On 2012-04-20 08:55, Eric Burger wrote:
> I have to admit to laughing out loud when I saw the IESG's announcement. Why?
> What is more important: cycling out Experimental RFC's or promoting Proposed
> Standards to Internet Standards?
>
> Do I hear chirping in the audience? If we need to focus "spare cycles"
> anywhere, I would offer progressing documents would be much more valuable
> than writing an Informational RFC that no one will read saying that an
> Experimental RFC that no one is reading should not be read.
I'm all for chirping, but having been co-responsible for RFC 6563,
I have to say that there are cases where such an effort is justified,
if the Experimental document is known to be a source of confusion.
I just don't like the implication that every Experimental RFC needs
a wrap-up RFC. That sounds like process for its own sake.
Brian
> On Apr 20, 2012, at 9:19 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
>> On 2012-04-19 23:27, Ronald Bonica wrote:
>> ...
>>> I think that this is a case-by-case judgment call. In some cases (e.g., RFC
>>> 1475), the experiment is clearly over. IMO, allowing RFC 1475 to retain
>>> EXPERIMENTAL status detracts from the credibility of current experiments
>>> that share the label.
>> I agree that it is case by case, so I don't really see the value in the
>> IESG statement. If it's appropriate to write an experiment-terminating
>> RFC, do so; if it's inappropriate, don't bother. That doesn't need
>> any new legislation.
>>
>> Brian
>
>
