Any reason why I cannot see the e-mail to which this is a reply? It never arrived at my MUA, which could well be my MUA, but it is not in the ietf archives either which suggests ....? I seem to recall this happening before from the same e-mail address on this same list. What else am I, and I assume others, missing? Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Crocker" <dcrocker@xxxxxxxx> To: "Scott O Bradner" <sob@xxxxxxxxx>; <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: <wgchairs@xxxxxxxx>; <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 11:00 PM Subject: Re: Proposed IESG Statement on the Conclusion of Experiments > +1 > > > /d > > -- > Dave Crocker > bbiw.net > > via mobile > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott O Bradner <sob@xxxxxxxxx> > To: adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: wgchairs@xxxxxxxx, ietf@xxxxxxxx > Sent: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 1:48 PM > Subject: Re: Proposed IESG Statement on the Conclusion of Experiments > > encouraging a report is fine > > retracting the code points seems to add more confusion than it is worth unless the > code space is very tight > > and I see no reason to obsolete the experimental rfc or move it to historic status unless the report is > that some bad thing happens when you try it out - updating the old rfc is fine > > and I agree with Elliot about the nature of research - it is very common to not > reach a conclusion that something is bad (as in bad for the net) - and that is the > only case where I think that an experiment should be flagged as a don't go there situation > > Scott > > > On Apr 19, 2012, at 4:31 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > > > All, > > > > The IESG has been discussing how to tidy up after Experimental RFCs. > > > > We have developed the following draft IESG statement. This does not > > represent a change in process, and continues to value Experimental RFCs > > as an important part of the IETF process. It does, however, seek to > > encourage documentation of the conclusion of experiments. > > > > We are aware that there may be other discussion points around > > Experimental RFCs, and we would like to discuss these, but we also > > believe that there is merit in making small, incremental improvements. > > > > The IESG would welcome your thoughts on this draft before they approve > > the final text on April 26th. > > > > Thanks, > > Adrian > > > > ============= > > > > IESG Statement on Conclusion of IETF Experiments > > > > > > Experiments are an established and valuable part of the IETF process. > > A number of core Internet protocols were first published as Experimental > > RFCs while the community gathered experience and carefully investigated > > the consequences of deploying new mechanisms within the Internet. > > > > In the case where an experiment leads on to the development of a > > Standards Track RFC documenting a protocol, the new RFC obsoletes the > > old Experimental RFC and there is a clear conclusion to the experiment. > > > > However, many experiments do not lead to the development of Standards > > Track RFCs. Instead, the work may be abandoned through lack of interest > > or because important lessons have been learned. > > > > It is currently hard to distinguish between an experiment that is still > > being investigated, and an old experiment that has ceased to be of > > interest to the community. In both cases an Experimental RFC exists in > > the repository and newcomers might easily be misled into thinking that > > it would be helpful to conduct more research into an abandoned > > experiment. > > > > In view of this, the original proponents of experiments (that is, > > authors of Experimental RFCs, and Working Groups that requested the > > publication of Experimental RFCs) are strongly encouraged to document > > the termination of experiments that do not result in subsequent > > Standards Track work by publishing an Informational RFC that: > > > > - very briefly describes the results of the experiment > > > > - obsoletes the Experimental RFC > > > > - if appropriate, deprecate any IANA code points allocated for the > > experiment > > > > - may request that the Experimental RFC is moved to Historic status. > > > > If there is no energy in the community for the producing such an > > Informational RFC, if the authors have moved on to other things, or if > > the Working Group has been closed down, Area Directors should author or > > seek volunteers to author such an Informational RFC. > > > >