On 2012-04-20 08:55, Eric Burger wrote:
> I have to admit to laughing out loud when I saw the IESG's announcement. Why? What is more important: cycling out Experimental RFC's or promoting Proposed Standards to Internet Standards?
>
> Do I hear chirping in the audience? If we need to focus "spare cycles" anywhere, I would offer progressing documents would be much more valuable than writing an Informational RFC that no one will read saying that an Experimental RFC that no one is reading should not be read.
I'm all for chirping, but having been co-responsible for RFC 6563,
I have to say that there are cases where such an effort is justified,
if the Experimental document is known to be a source of confusion.
I just don't like the implication that every Experimental RFC needs
a wrap-up RFC. That sounds like process for its own sake.
Brian
> On Apr 20, 2012, at 9:19 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
>> On 2012-04-19 23:27, Ronald Bonica wrote:
>> ...
>>> I think that this is a case-by-case judgment call. In some cases (e.g., RFC 1475), the experiment is clearly over. IMO, allowing RFC 1475 to retain EXPERIMENTAL status detracts from the credibility of current experiments that share the label.
>> I agree that it is case by case, so I don't really see the value in the
>> IESG statement. If it's appropriate to write an experiment-terminating
>> RFC, do so; if it's inappropriate, don't bother. That doesn't need
>> any new legislation.
>>
>> Brian
>
>