On Weds, 27th October 2010, at 13:56:25 -0700, Bob Braden wrote in part: > In this environment, the only thing that seems to make sense > is for WGs to start usually at Experimental (someone else > suggested this, I apologize for not recalling who it was). Agreed. Most times it would be better if IETF WGs initially create an Experimental status RFC, possibly doing so quite rapidly, and then later revise that (based on at experience) and publish the revision on the IETF standards-track. Indeed, this is what the LISP WG appears to be doing. It also is how HIP started out (initially an IRTF HIP RG, then an IETF HIP WG with Experimental RFCs, now the IETF HIP WG is working on standards-track RFCs). I am trying to follow that model with ILNP, which the IRTF Routing RG has offered to the IRSG for publication on the IRTF track, as a set of Experimental RFCs of course. On Weds, 27th October 2010, at 14:48:22 -0700, Bob Braden wrote in part: > I note that there seems to be some correlation between > the degradation of the IETF process and the disappearance > of the Internet research community from the IETF > (the US government decided that no further R&D funding > was required, since the Internet was "done".) Agreed. There seems to be strong correlation between those events. I believe that the USG (and other research funding bodies elsewhere -- to be geographically neutral) were confused when they erroneously thought either that the Internet was "done" or that "industry would do any research that might be needed in future". The IAB's RFC-3869 expressed this concern in 2004, providing several concrete examples of areas that industry wasn't solving and that needed more research. Yours, Ran _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf