We really need to get over ourselves here. We may like to think we're the
gatekeepers against standardization of bad stuff, but we're not. There are
simply too many SDOs churning out specifciations these days.
In other words, "If we don't do it, someone else will."
Not even close. First, you're again totally missing the essential point here:
That an experimental or informational RFC is NOT a standard. So there is no
equivalency between our "doing" an experimental RFC and someone else "doing" a
Second, AFAIK nobody has even intimated that other standards groups are
planning to standardize this particular proposal.
Third, nobody has said that our publishing something about this - never mind
what - will, as you imply, have any effect on what other SDOs do. In fact my
main point is that our publication practices are unlikely to have any impact at
And finally, to the extent publication as an experimental RFC would have an
effect, it is that it provides a means for people to experiment with the
technology and determine for themselves whether or not it is useful. And that
includes evaluation of IPR issues. There is in fact "running code" that, far
from always leading to increased adoption of a given proposal, publication in
the form of an experimental RFC may in fact expose the problematic nature of a
proposal and lead to its rejection by the community in a fashion which, has the
document never been published, would not have happened.
Ietf mailing list