There are two different potential intentions to 'Experimental':
1. to conduct an experiment, as Eliot notes below, i.e.,
to gain experience that a protocol 'does good' 'in the wild'
2. to gain experience that a protocol does no harm 'in the wild'
I think of IETF Experimental track as being more about #2 than #1. #1
may be the responsibility of the proponents, but given the IETF doesn't
even conduct conformance testing for standards-track, it it seems
overzealous to expect it to verify a scientific procedure for
experimental-track.
The document should definitely state why experimental is chosen - what
the concerns are, and what to look out for (as to #1). But I would stop
well short of specifying theses, procedures, etc. (#2) for this track.
Joe
Eliot Lear wrote:
Brian,
It would seem to me that the purpose of an experimental RFC is to let
people perform and participate in (rather public) experiments on the
Internet. A reasonable standard for "experimental" is that there be a
thesis and a procedure so that the experiment can be repeated,
observations can be made, and conclusions can be drawn. The thesis
should be clear as to what is being tested, and it should at least pass
the laugh test. Further, the standard for design of the experiment
should provide for the least practicable interference with other ongoing
operations (experimental or not).
So, is that simple enough or too simplistic?
Eliot
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf