Hi Randy, Both you and Brian have rightly noted that the proposed IESG statement changes neither process nor policy. It is intended to direct the community's attention to a problem that is small today, but promises to grow with time. Please review the list of experimental RFCs at the following URL: - http://www.rfc-editor.org/categories/rfc-experimental.html I am willing to bet that you laughed at least once while scanning this list. I got a chuckle from RFC 1475, the IPv7 experiment. But seriously, I identified nearly a dozen RFCs that fell into one of the following categories: - should have been obsolete by subsequent Standards Track documents, but weren't - are more than 10 years old and have not gained traction, generally because an alternative approach has gained traction and become widely deployed (e.g., RFC 1393 - Traceroute Using an IP Option). The proposed IESG statement encourages community members to terminate their own experiments when they have clearly ended. In many cases, the experimenter moves on before the experiment is terminated. In that case, the cleanup chore is left to others. The proposed IESG statement *does not* seek to expedite the termination of any experiment. Its only goal is to identify experiments that clearly have terminated. IMO, it is important that we label terminated experiments as such. Otherwise, in years to come, it will become even more difficult to distinguish between active experiments that deserve community attention and old cruft that can safely be ignored. Ron > -----Original Message----- > From: iesg-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:iesg-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > Randy Presuhn > Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 7:06 PM > To: ietf@xxxxxxxx; wgchairs@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Proposed IESG Statement on the Conclusion of Experiments > > Hi - > > > From: "Ronald Bonica" <rbonica@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > To: <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; <ietf@xxxxxxxx>; <wgchairs@xxxxxxxx> > > Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 1:56 PM > > Subject: RE: Proposed IESG Statement on the Conclusion of Experiments > .... > > If this IESG statement is published, none of that changes. > > It might be helpful to say what *would* change upon publication of this > statement, and why the IESG believes it is important to make that > change, because we're obviously not unerstanding the proposal in the > same way. > > Randy