---- Original Message -----
From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith(_dot_)drage(_at_)alcatel-lucent(_dot_)com>
To: "Melinda Shore" <melinda(_dot_)shore(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
Cc: <wgchairs(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 1:12 AM
Subject: RE: Proposed IESG Statement on the Conclusion of Experiments
I wasn't discussing the point about whether there should be a process change or
not. Rather, I don't think any process, existing or new, of changing the
document type can be done in less than 12 months, and I don't think that such
change in status will match any market needs for extra identification of active
RFCs worthy of implementation.
Therefore essentially in many respects this discussion will achieve nothing.
<tp>
I think the opposite, that it will generate work that will distract from the
main purpose of the IETF.
I say this because, since about November 2010, there has been significant e-mail
activity relating to a raft of sleeping dogs that were best left to lie, in the
shape of URIs and transport protocols that had received little or no attention
for decades.
Lists such as tsvwg, URI, apps-discuss show such activity with long-term
participants in the IETF saying, forget it, we have better things to do. It
emerged that at least one AD had been doing the opposite, encouraging this
activitiy.
I see this in the same vein. Where an experiment deserves a follow-up, it gets
it because the motivation is there to do something. Where it does not, forget
it. This IESG proposal will encourage unnecessary work on experiments that are
best left to lie.
Tom Petch
</tp>
Regards
Keith
-----Original Message-----
From: Melinda Shore [mailto:melinda(_dot_)shore(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com]
Sent: 21 April 2012 01:38
To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
Cc: Brian E Carpenter; wgchairs(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Proposed IESG Statement on the Conclusion of Experiments
On 4/20/12 4:28 PM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote:
Changing something from experimental to proposed standard in a
process that will probably take 12 months will be unlikely change the
number of people implementing and deploying an RFC.
I'm going to take the liberty of mentioning that I spoke with Ron
earlier today about this. Basically what he's asking is that there
be no process changes, and, I think, no policy changes, just
that IESG members should be mindful about how to phase experimental
stuff out when it's flopped.
Personally, I think he's correct about both cruft and mindfulness
and suspect that probably nearly everybody agrees with what he's
saying, anyway, but unfortunately it was presented in a form that
made it look like More Process.
Melinda