On 2/15/06, Brian E Carpenter <brc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > When considering some recent appeals, the IESG discovered that > we have very little guidance about the meaning of "experiments" > in relation to Experimental RFCs. <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3160.txt> What's wrong with the definition that appears in RFC3160, section 6.5? Quoting: >> Experimental RFCs are for specifications that may be interesting, but >> for which it is unclear if there will be much interest in >> implementing them. That is, a specification might solve a problem, >> but if it is not clear many people think that the problem is >> important, or think that they will bother fixing the problem with the >> specification, the specification might be labeled an Experimental >> RFC. This definition allows publication of specifications that some people don't like or don't care about. It also implies that there might be other RFCs attempting to solve the same problem. > We encourage community discussion and development of more specific > guidelines on operational conflicts caused by experiments and how this > should affect what we choose to publish. The overview of the IETF[1] highlights two areas of concern: a. The evolution of the Internet archicture b. The smooth operation of the Internet So, it would seem to me that experiments must not damage the Internet. [1] http://ietf.org/overview.html -- Robert Sayre _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf