Hi Carsten,
We are discussing a proposal for an IESG statement that includes the following:
In view of this, the original proponents of experiments (that is, authors of
Experimental RFCs, and Working Groups that requested the publication of
Experimental RFCs) are strongly encouraged to document the termination of
experiments that do not result in subsequent Standards Track work by
publishing an Informational RFC that:
- very briefly describes the results of the experiment
So the 'experiments' seem to be considered by the IESG as related to
Experimental RFCs.
My point is that if we discuss about 'results of the experiment' and the IESG
plans to strongly encourage authors of Experimental RFCs to briefly describe
the results, they should also recommend to include in the RFCs in an explicit
manner the goals which the results of the experiments are to be measured
against.
Also, if you are quoting RFC 2026 you must have also encountered the following
paragraph in section 3.3:
(d) Limited Use: The TS is considered to be appropriate for use
only in limited or unique circumstances. For example, the usage
of a protocol with the "Experimental" designation should generally
be limited to those actively involved with the experiment.
So the term 'experiment' already appears in 2026.
Regards,
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: Carsten Bormann [mailto:cabo(_at_)tzi(_dot_)org]
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2012 3:18 PM
To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
Cc: adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
wgchairs(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Proposed IESG Statement on the Conclusion of Experiments
On Apr 22, 2012, at 13:08, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
Part of the problems with Experimental RFCs which were prompted up
also
in this discussion derive from the fact that many of the RFCs labeled
as
Experimental do not describe in clear terms the goals of the
experiment
that is being proposed.
I never knew that was an objective for an experimental RFC.
(But I have only been contributing to the IETF for 19 years.)
The way that I understood *experimental* RFCs all this time was that
they provide interoperability specifications that are *experimental*,
i.e., we need further *experience* to validate them (e.g., we don't
fully understand yet whether they work as well as we think).
The design of formal *experiments* around these specifications never
was a subject, and I would be surprised to do these anywhere in the
IETF (maybe in the IRTF, but even that is a long shot for most of
these). More importantly, the *experience* needed for validation may
not come out of *experiments* at all.
Please read these two sentences from RFC 2026 again and tell me what I
have missed these 19 years.
The "Experimental" designation typically denotes a specification
that
is part of some research or development effort. Such a
specification
is published for the general information of the Internet technical
community and as an archival record of the work, subject only to
editorial considerations and to verification that there has been
adequate coordination with the standards process (see below).
I wouldn't mind if an experimental RFC were more vocal about what kind
of experience is missing, motivating *why* it is still experimental.
As was already said in this thread, "experimental" status is often
threatened as a cop-out out of a standardization process that some
party does not want to complete. Curbing *that* would be worth some
effort.
Grüße, Carsten
PS.: Since I'm not a native speaker, I just looked up again what
experimental means. Yes, experiments may be involved (in submeaning
2), but that's not the main semantics of this word. Deriving the
*need* for an "experiment" from this word strikes me as confused.
experimental |ɪkˈˌspɛrəˈˌmɛn(t)l|
adjective
(of a new invention or product) based on untested ideas or techniques
and not yet established or finalized: an experimental drug.
• (of a work of art or an artistic technique) involving a radically new
and innovative style: experimental music.
• of or relating to scientific experiments: experimental results.
• archaic based on experience as opposed to authority or conjecture: an
experimental knowledge of God.