FWIW, I strongly concur. Everyone participating in the IETF who has been concerned about, or had to listen to people complaining about, non-standards-track RFC being marketed as standards should think about the boon this would be to those inclined to do such things if we start providing worked examples of RFCs that clearly say "Experimental" and "Not a Standard" being standards after all. And, like Joe, I'd expect to see a formal report on the experiment and is outcome before any action is taken on this or a replacement document. john --On Sunday, August 29, 2021 12:51 -0400 Barry Leiba <barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I don't understand how we can reclassify Experimental RFCs to > Proposed Standard without re-issuing them with a new RFC > number, as the boilerplate is incompatible. Specifically, the > "Status of This Memo" section says: > > This document is not an Internet Standards Track > specification; it is published for examination, > experimental implementation, and evaluation. > > This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the > Internet community. > > The status-change reclassification is for reclassification in > place (as when we move from Proposed Standard to Internet > Standard, or from any status to Historical). But to move > Experimental to Proposed Standard, it seems to me that we need > a new Internet Draft that Obsoletes the Experimental RFC, with > normal processing of that draft and publication as a new RFC. > > Barry > > On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 5:08 PM The IESG > <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> The IESG has received a request from an Area Director to make >> the following status changes: >> >> - RFC8321 from Experimental to Proposed Standard >> (Alternate-Marking Method for Passive and Hybrid >> Performance Monitoring) >> >> - RFC8889 from Experimental to Proposed Standard >> (Multipoint Alternate-Marking Method for Passive and >> Hybrid Performance Monitoring) >> >> The supporting document for this request can be found here: >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-rfc8321-rfc888 >> 9-alt-mark-to-ps/ >> >> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and >> solicits final comments on this action. Please send >> substantive comments to the last-call@xxxxxxxx mailing lists >> by 2021-09-24. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to >> iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the >> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. >> >> The affected documents can be obtained via >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8321/ >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8889/ >> >> IESG discussion of this request can be tracked via >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-rfc8321-rfc888 >> 9-alt-mark-to-ps/ballot/ >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> IETF-Announce mailing list >> IETF-Announce@xxxxxxxx >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
