I also looked at https://www.ietf.org/iesg/informational-vs-experimental.html and I got the impression that an Experimental RFC would be the right category.
Ciao Hannes On 09/11/2014 06:03 PM, Richer, Justin P. wrote: > +1 > > That was the key line that I took from the guidelines as well and this was my > understanding of the discussion in Toronto. > > -- Justin > > On Sep 11, 2014, at 12:02 PM, John Bradley <ve7...@ve7jtb.com> wrote: > >> I think this fits. >> >> • If the IETF may publish something based on this on the standards >> track once we know how well this one works, it's Experimental. This is the >> typical case of not being able to decide which protocol is "better" before >> we have experience of dealing with them from a stable specification. Case in >> point: "PGM Reliable Transport Protocol Specification" (RFC 3208) >> >> If we publish something it may or may not look like the current spec but >> getting some experience with the current spec will inform that decision. >> >> John B. >> On Sep 11, 2014, at 12:55 PM, Phil Hunt <phil.h...@oracle.com> wrote: >> >>> Interesting. The definitions in that don't correspond with what ADs and >>> other groups are doing. >>> >>> I heard httpbis using experimental as a placeholder for a draft that didn't >>> have full consensus to bring back later. >>> >>> That was the feel I had in Toronto-that we weren't done but it was time to >>> publish something. >>> >>> Reading the actual definition i would say neither fits. Ugh. >>> >>> Phil >>> >>>> On Sep 11, 2014, at 8:01, "Richer, Justin P." <jric...@mitre.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> According to the guidelines here: >>>> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/informational-vs-experimental.html >>>> >>>> And the discussion in Toronto, it's clearly experimental. >>>> >>>> -- Justin >>>> >>>>> On Sep 11, 2014, at 10:36 AM, Anthony Nadalin <tony...@microsoft.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Is "experimental" the correct classification? Maybe "informational" is >>>>> more appropriate as both of these were discussed. >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: OAuth [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hannes Tschofenig >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 4:50 PM >>>>> To: oauth@ietf.org >>>>> Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Dynamic Client Registration Management Protocol: Next >>>>> Steps? >>>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> in response to the discussions at the last IETF meeting the authors of >>>>> the "Dynamic Client Registration Management Protocol" >>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-management-05 have >>>>> changed the document type to "Experimental". >>>>> >>>>> We need to make a decision about the next steps for the document and we >>>>> see the following options: >>>>> >>>>> a) Publish it as an experimental RFC >>>>> >>>>> b) Remove it from the working group and ask an AD to shepherd it >>>>> >>>>> c) Remove it from the working group and let the authors publish it via >>>>> the independent submission track. >>>>> >>>>> In any case it would be nice to let folks play around with it and then, >>>>> after some time, come back to determine whether there is enough interest >>>>> to produce a standard. >>>>> >>>>> Please let us know what you think! >>>>> >>>>> Ciao >>>>> Hannes & Derek >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> OAuth mailing list >>>>> OAuth@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> OAuth mailing list >>>> OAuth@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OAuth mailing list >>> OAuth@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >> > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
