Stephen Farrell <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie>: > In support of Kathleen's comment and based on the shepherd's write-up, > > why is this experimental and what is > > the experiment? >
> There's no good answer, sorry. I knew folks would ask, so I asked > the WG and it seems to me to be a case that nobody cares really so > they just picked one and aren't much energised to talk more about > it. That's not too unreasonable. See the thread at [1] for some > more. > > Given that this is widely deployed and a similar feature is being > included in TLS1.3, there is no real experiment here, what the WG > care about is that this RFC be not-PS I reckon. > [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/UDiFtVrQhjP9MXMW45tiYHrCDn8 I'm certainly completely fine with "Informational". Based on the criteria in https://www.ietf.org/iesg/informational-vs-experimental.html Section 3 (specifically, #4), I decided last year that "Experimental" seemed more appropriate than "Informational" (revising what I'd said a bit earlier in https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg16193.html). Given the current wide deployment, however, I agree that this isn't really an experiment at this point. As far as I am aware, no one really would prefer "Experimental" over "Informational" for this spec, while I've seen the opposite a few times (and most, presumably, just don't care one way or the other). Thus, the document probably should be "Informational" after all. Bodo Bodo
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
