On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 9:47 AM Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:
There are a number of possible reasons for seeking Experimental status
to an RFC:
1. The technology is defines is not yet understood well enough and
there are concerns that its functionality, reliability, or the like
might not behave as intended
2. The proposed use of the technology might go beyond established
practice and the expanded use might need vetting
3. The technology might not scale adequately for Internet use
4. The market might not be sufficiently interested in the
technology to choose to use it
5. The documentation of the technology might need wider review and
comment
The current draft probably qualifies under more than one of these.
I suggest considering BCP 9, which defines "Experimental" thus:
The "Experimental" designation typically denotes a specification that
is part of some research or development effort. Such a specification
is published for the general information of the Internet technical
community and as an archival record of the work, subject only to
editorial considerations and to verification that there has been
adequate coordination with the standards process [...]
(Then again, BCP 9 has been updated over a dozen times, and I may have
missed an extended definition in one of those.)
I can see why people might find it odd to claim that something dating back
to the 1990s, as this draft says, is being categorized as an R&D effort
today.
Perhaps the Introduction might be amended to explain this perceived
discrepancy?
-MSK
_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp