On 4/16/2014 9:31 AM, Thomas Clausen wrote: > > FWIW, my personal belief is that "running code" should be a > requirement for anything going std. track -- and that a (mandatory) > period as Experimental prior to go std. track would yield the stable > spec against which to reasonably build code, and run > (interoperability) tests, fix bugs, etc. If after (pulling a number > out my hat here) a year as Experimental there's no running code, then > that's probably a good indicator, also, as to if this is something > the IETF should bother doing.... > If there's no running code, or pretty concrete plans and commitments to get there, then there's really no need for an Experimental RFC that will get a number and last forever. An I-D that expires in direct conjunction with the interest and energy in it is just fine. Experimental RFCs are for things that we're encouraging folks to get out and play with in multiple implementations, perhaps on the real Internet or under some specific conditions, but which may have sharp edges or explode on impact, and need a bit more work to figure out if we can seriously recommend the world to depend on them as Standards. -- Wes Eddy MTI Systems