Sat, Jul 06, 2019 at 12:44:14PM -0700, Eric Rescorla: > On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 11:55 AM Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I suspect people have been jumping off to something which is harder, > > and perhaps for them, more interesting, which is signalling that a > > particular I-D version is one that is worthy of being implemented, and > > perhaps, deployed in a world where new implementations can be reliably > > rolled out to a large percentage of the installed base in 2-3 months. > > One answer is of course the experimental RFC, but the problem is that > > a lot of people see RFC and immediately assume, it's a stable, > > IETF-blessed standard documentation, regardless of the "Experimental" > > tag on the top of every single page of said document. > > > > An experimental RFC would not address the need I am talking about: we're > spinning one of these every 1-4 months, and doing WGLC, IETF-LC, and RFC > processing would cause far too much delay. > > -Ekr exactly; neither experimental nor informational address the desire completely.
