On 10/28/2010 12:22 EDT, RJ Atkinson wrote:
On Weds, 27th October 2010, at 13:56:25 -0700, Bob Braden wrote in part:
In this environment, the only thing that seems to make sense
is for WGs to start usually at Experimental (someone else
suggested this, I apologize for not recalling who it was).
Agreed.
Most times it would be better if IETF WGs initially create
an Experimental status RFC, possibly doing so quite rapidly,
and then later revise that (based on at experience) and
publish the revision on the IETF standards-track.
Given how many WGs these days in fact seem to start from "let's develop
something and see if we can make it useful", this wouldn't be too bad.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf