It has been pointed out me that I have just been royally careless
in the wording of a previous note. Having potentially caused damage,
let me try to undo it quickly:
(Wearing my Standards Monger hat)
RFCs that are labeled Informational or Experimental are published by
the RFC editor, primarily at his/her discretion but after coordination
with the IESG. The coordination is to ensure that the document in
question does not collide with IETF work-in-progress, or the like.
I believe that the primary basis for having a WG recommend an
Informational or Experimental status is to make an explicit statement
that a spec is *not* intended for the standards track, AT THIS TIME.
(The last 3 words are added.)
In other words, the wg statement is, in no way, making a statement about
*future* comments or recommendations about a spec, only about the
group's *current* assessment.
Yours for Correct Language,