Hi Lars,
I was just typing a similar response to Eliot and Scott.
Clearly the IESG does not have authority over the IRTF stream.
I had thought this context ant the limitation to the IETF stream was clear in
the initial blurb ("Experiments are an established and valuable part of the IETF
process.") but obviously I was wrong :-)
We will add clarification of this point to the statement.
Thanks,
Adrian
-----Original Message-----
From: Eggert, Lars [mailto:lars(_at_)netapp(_dot_)com]
Sent: 20 April 2012 08:31
To: <adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk>
Cc: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; <wgchairs(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>;
<iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Subject: Re: Proposed IESG Statement on the Conclusion of Experiments
Hi,
On Apr 19, 2012, at 22:31, Adrian Farrel wrote:
The IESG has been discussing how to tidy up after Experimental RFCs.
We have developed the following draft IESG statement. This does not
represent a change in process, and continues to value Experimental RFCs
as an important part of the IETF process. It does, however, seek to
encourage documentation of the conclusion of experiments.
any IESG statement would only cover Experimental RFCs on the IETF Stream,
right?
Lars