I also strongly concur. It is very close to trivial to issue these two documents as I-Ds with standards track boilerplate and give them a 4-week last call. That would conform to our process and avoid an extremely confused and confusing end state. A report on their experimental use would be a useful adjunct to that last call. Maybe it would be quicker to use the normal downref mechanism, since draft-mirsky-bier-pmmm-oam wants it. Regards Brian Carpenter On 30-Aug-21 08:26, John C Klensin wrote: > 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
