On 2/15/06, Brian E Carpenter <brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com> wrote:
When considering some recent appeals, the IESG discovered that
we have very little guidance about the meaning of "experiments"
in relation to Experimental RFCs.
<http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3160.txt>
What's wrong with the definition that appears in RFC3160, section 6.5? Quoting:
Experimental RFCs are for specifications that may be interesting, but
for which it is unclear if there will be much interest in
implementing them. That is, a specification might solve a problem,
but if it is not clear many people think that the problem is
important, or think that they will bother fixing the problem with the
specification, the specification might be labeled an Experimental
RFC.
This definition allows publication of specifications that some people
don't like or don't care about. It also implies that there might be
other RFCs attempting to solve the same problem.
We encourage community discussion and development of more specific
guidelines on operational conflicts caused by experiments and how this
should affect what we choose to publish.
The overview of the IETF[1] highlights two areas of concern:
a. The evolution of the Internet archicture
b. The smooth operation of the Internet
So, it would seem to me that experiments must not damage the Internet.
[1] http://ietf.org/overview.html
--
Robert Sayre
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf