> I agree. The DOS attack on this list seems to be from people > who haven't read RFC 2026 and use meaningless phrases like > "experimental standard." In fact, publishing this as an experiment > to see if it gets implemented and deployed despite the IPR issue > seems like *exactly* the right thing to do. I agree that experimental status is the right thing here, but I am not clear that this determination is being made consistently. If one judges by the level of encumbrance, maturity, etc. then this specification is actually in much better shape than other specifications that been approved as Proposed Standard, some not too long ago. So, the question is whether the IETF has some kind of process and procedure by which to make these decisions -- or whether we just allow decisions to be made based on whether a particular specification gets on people's radar screen and "interpretation" of the resulting emails by the IESG. With respect to judging whether a particular set of emails constitutes a DoS attack or an expression of the will of the IETF community -- RFC 2026 doesn't impose a "poll tax" on posters, requiring that they demonstrate knowledge of IETF process to express their opinions. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf