Hi, Jari,
We should be able to say that for a particular experimental RFC there
have been this many independent implementation, and they interoperate OK,
and only so-and-so clarifications need to be added, and the document is
ready for "Proposed".
I think we already have that. There is really no requirement to produce a
new draft, for instance. You can reclassify an RFC to a different status
(and we do it sometimes). Additional knowledge outside the document about
implementations, market acceptance, and lack of problems would easily
convince me at least that the document is worthy of PS status.
I think a key question in choosing between a multi-level standards track and
a single-level standards track is what the first publication step looks
like, so I've been interested in recent proposals to use Experimental as a
first publication step. Having said that ...
As I read http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5741.txt, Experimental RFCs would
be Category: Experimental on the first page, and I'd expect them to be
revised when they are reclassified, if only to make this say Category:
Standards Track. So that's at least a small barrier to reclassification in
place.
Thanks,
Spencer
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf