Hi Carsten,
We are discussing a proposal for an IESG statement that includes the following:
> 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
So the 'experiments' seem to be considered by the IESG as related to Experimental RFCs.
My point is that if we discuss about 'results of the experiment' and the IESG plans to strongly encourage authors of Experimental RFCs to briefly describe the results, they should also recommend to include in the RFCs in an explicit manner the goals which the results of the experiments are to be measured against.
Also, if you are quoting RFC 2026 you must have also encountered the following paragraph in section 3.3:
> (d) Limited Use: The TS is considered to be appropriate for use
only in limited or unique circumstances. For example, the usage
of a protocol with the "Experimental" designation should generally
be limited to those actively involved with the experiment.
So the term 'experiment' already appears in 2026.
Regards,
Dan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carsten Bormann [mailto:cabo@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2012 3:18 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; wgchairs@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Proposed IESG Statement on the Conclusion of Experiments
>
> On Apr 22, 2012, at 13:08, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> I never knew that was an objective for an experimental RFC.
>
> (But I have only been contributing to the IETF for 19 years.)
>
> The way that I understood *experimental* RFCs all this time was that
> they provide interoperability specifications that are *experimental*,
> i.e., we need further *experience* to validate them (e.g., we don't
> fully understand yet whether they work as well as we think).
>
> The design of formal *experiments* around these specifications never
> was a subject, and I would be surprised to do these anywhere in the
> IETF (maybe in the IRTF, but even that is a long shot for most of
> these). More importantly, the *experience* needed for validation may
> not come out of *experiments* at all.
>
> Please read these two sentences from RFC 2026 again and tell me what I
> have missed these 19 years.
>
> The "Experimental" designation typically denotes a specification
> that
> is part of some research or development effort. Such a
> specification
> is published for the general information of the Internet technical
> community and as an archival record of the work, subject only to
> editorial considerations and to verification that there has been
> adequate coordination with the standards process (see below).
>
> I wouldn't mind if an experimental RFC were more vocal about what kind
> of experience is missing, motivating *why* it is still experimental.
> As was already said in this thread, "experimental" status is often
> threatened as a cop-out out of a standardization process that some
> party does not want to complete. Curbing *that* would be worth some
> effort.
>
> Grüße, Carsten
>
> PS.: Since I'm not a native speaker, I just looked up again what
> experimental means. Yes, experiments may be involved (in submeaning
> 2), but that's not the main semantics of this word. Deriving the
> *need* for an "experiment" from this word strikes me as confused.
>
> experimental |ɪkˈˌspɛrəˈˌmɛn(t)l|
> adjective
> (of a new invention or product) based on untested ideas or techniques
> and not yet established or finalized: an experimental drug.
> • (of a work of art or an artistic technique) involving a radically new
> and innovative style: experimental music.
> • of or relating to scientific experiments: experimental results.
> • archaic based on experience as opposed to authority or conjecture: an
> experimental knowledge of God.