- Many RFCs are *not* on the IETF standards track.
One of the commenters mentioned that even Informational RFCs are seen,
by the uninitiated, as having the force of a standard.
- Any "Experimental RFC" is *not* on the IETF standards track.
So there is no "endorsement" by IETF in publishing such.
In fact, designating an RFC with IPR concerns to Experimental status is
a kind of "purgatory" for the RFC. It gives opponents a chance rally
implementation efforts using alternatives so that the Experimental RFC
never goes anywhere. But, if it turns out that there are no viable
alternatives or that the IPR owner is being fair and reasonable, then
the RFC can come out of Experimental status after the work has proven
itself. If the FSF and others understood that Experimental RFCs are a
form of purgatory, I think many of them would be satisfied.
able to be published as an Informational RFC or Experimental RFC.
Technology that is useful will be adopted if economically
sensible, whether in an RFC or not, whether made a formal
standard or not.
By having an open specification, users can at least
understand the properties of the technology that is documented openly.
And people who dislike an IPR-encumbered design are free to publish an
alternative that satisfies the same needs. If they succeed in getting
their design published as an Informational or Experimental RFC, then
they have reached "IETF feature parity".
I am in favor of publishing draft-housley as Experimental
--Michael Dillon
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf