Hi Brian,
My personal observation is that some folks are just too afraid about
success of some 12 experimental RFCs to be published soon and are
already actively seeking a formal way to kill them in the not too
distant future.
If the goal here is really about clean-up of dead experiments - I would
highly recommend to add a clear definition to the mentioned IESG
Statement (if at all needed) that this is applicable only to those
experiments which are no longer being actively tested in any way.
If anyone on the respective list would state that he is still testing
given experimental RFC for as long as it takes I am against moving such
RFC to historic status. If no one would care to respond within min 4-6
weeks period I see no reason to block corresponding allocations.
Best regards,
R.
On 2012-04-19 23:27, Ronald Bonica wrote: ...
I think that this is a case-by-case judgment call. In some cases
(e.g., RFC 1475), the experiment is clearly over. IMO, allowing RFC
1475 to retain EXPERIMENTAL status detracts from the credibility of
current experiments that share the label.
I agree that it is case by case, so I don't really see the value in
the IESG statement. If it's appropriate to write an
experiment-terminating RFC, do so; if it's inappropriate, don't
bother. That doesn't need any new legislation.
Brian