> I also note that many other SDOs publish informative, non-standard, documents in the form of technical reports and that things we would call Experimental (or our original definition of Proposed Standard) show up as things "for trial use". So, again, fwiw, we are not the only, or even the first, body to conclude that formal review, consensus, and publication of such documents is a practical necessity. If we were to do this, we need another term besides RFC. After 20 years, everyone "knows" that RFC means an Internet standard. (Yes, I exaggerate about what everyone knows)
