Hi,
I sort of agree that no new legislation is needed, and I don't read the
statement as legislation.
But it is clear that, with the exception of promotion of Experimental RFCs onto
the Standards Track, this function has not been happening. It makes sense (I
think) to set expectations.
Adrian
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian E Carpenter
[mailto:brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com]
Sent: 20 April 2012 08:20
To: Ronald Bonica
Cc: Scott O Bradner; adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk;
wgchairs(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Proposed IESG Statement on the Conclusion of Experiments
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