Hi, Part of the problems with Experimental RFCs which were prompted up also in this discussion derive from the fact that many of the RFCs labeled as Experimental do not describe in clear terms the goals of the experiment that is being proposed. It is hard for somebody to describe the results of the experiment (even very briefly) if the goals were not specified. If the IESG decides to go ahead with this statement I suggest that a strong recommendation is added for documents that aim Experimental as their Proposed Status to include clear and explicit text about the goals of the experiment and wherever relevant conditions, restrictions, and timeframe. Regards, Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > Adrian Farrel > Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 11:31 PM > To: ietf@xxxxxxxx; wgchairs@xxxxxxxx > Cc: iesg@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Proposed IESG Statement on the Conclusion of Experiments > > 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.