On balance I think this experiment is safe to carry out, and therefore
probably should be carried out. There are a few comments below.
However, I would urge the IESG to update the page at
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/process-experiment.html, including current
status of the experiments mentioned, and the history of concluded
experiments, which I'm pretty sure was there a few years ago.
At least, the history of the RFC 4693 experiment isn't there.
1. It seems clear that the explicit mention of GPLv3 should be removed.
It's contentious for a number of reasons. The phrase "e.g., under a Free
Software or Open Source license" seems necessary and sufficient.
2. There's a slight inconsistency between the mention of interoperablity
in a few places and the proposal to use *one* implementation as a
criterion. It doesn't seem unreasonable to use one implementation
as a criterion for PS, since a criterion for IS under RFC 6410 is
multiple interoperable implementations. But we should not imply that
one successful implementation implies anything at all about
interoperability. I think this needs to be stated quite explicitly:
Note that the existence of one implementation does not in any way
demonstrate the interoperability required for advancement on the
standards track [RFC6410].
3. However, I remember very bad experience some years ago with the
6NET project attempting to deploy Mobile IPv6 based on implementations
of several different versions of the main MIPv6 draft. They simply
could not interoperate. There is a risk that fast-tracking a draft could
actually be damaging in such a situation. I think we would need a clear
consensus that the draft is stable as well as viable. I suggest adding
an item in section 4 something like this:
The WG chairs and responsible AD must be satisfied that the draft is
in a stable state and that significant technical changes are unlikely
to be proposed in the near future.
Regards
Brian