Steve,
Endorsment of a standard implies two (separable) assertions:
1) Do 'X'.
2) If you are going to do 'X', then do it by doing 'Y'
An experimental specification on the other hand contains the assertions
1) It might be desirable to do 'X'
2) It might be possible to do 'X' by doing 'Y'
So an experimental RFC does go part way towards a standard. But where it falls
short is precisely the area where issues such as IPR come in. In particular the
question of whether the need for 'X' justifies the IPR encumbrance.
If the market, of its own accord suddenly goes off and starts implementing Y,
it becomes pretty clear that there is a need.
But offhand, I can really think of no example other than public key crypto
where this was the case.
________________________________
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org on behalf of Steven M. Bellovin
Sent: Mon 3/9/2009 2:14 PM
To: SM
Cc: rms(_at_)gnu(_dot_)org; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Consensus Call for draft-housley-tls-authz
On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 11:07:10 -0700
SM <sm(_at_)resistor(_dot_)net> wrote:
As the draft was not approved by the IESG as a "Proposed Standard",
the fact is that most people in the IETF community would not consider
it as a proposed standard.
"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."
Publication as an "Experimental" RFC does make a document a
standard. The "Status of This Memo" which is prominently displayed
on the first page of the RFC mentions that:
"This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind."
Put another way, an Experimental RFC is no more an IETF standard than a
conference or journal publication. Someone has done something that is
perceived to be of enough interest to the community to publish as an
RFC, but it is manifestly *not* an IETF standard of any kind.
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf