On Apr 16, 2014, at 5:01 PM, Wesley Eddy <wes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Except that an I-D usually doesn’t get IANA allocations, so you use a number from the private space, and you have to coordinate with anyone who wants to interoperate about which private number to use.