-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 5:50 PM
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Second Last Call: <draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message-
08.txt> (Sieve Notification Mechanism: SIP MESSAGE) to Proposed
Standard
The document could be restricted to Experimental status, but that
presumes the status matters as much as or more than the RFC number. I
don't know if that's true or not in this case.
That, too, strikes me as a cure that's worse than the disease.
"Experimental" isn't a punishment, and I think it would be a horrid
idea to use the document's status in that way. [...]
I think my suggestion was based on the premise of a past contentious working
group whose outputs were reduced to Experimental by the IESG, and part of the
contention was objectionable IPR claims. I think in retrospect that was not
quite right; the IPR claims were a problem with the personalities in the room,
but they were not direct causes of the status changes. So probably not a
well-founded suggestion in the end.
-MSK
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf