|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
Hi Brian,My personal observation is that some folks are just too afraid about success of some 12 experimental RFCs to be published soon and are already actively seeking a formal way to kill them in the not too distant future.
If the goal here is really about clean-up of dead experiments - I would highly recommend to add a clear definition to the mentioned IESG Statement (if at all needed) that this is applicable only to those experiments which are no longer being actively tested in any way.
If anyone on the respective list would state that he is still testing given experimental RFC for as long as it takes I am against moving such RFC to historic status. If no one would care to respond within min 4-6 weeks period I see no reason to block corresponding allocations.
Best regards, R.
On 2012-04-19 23:27, Ronald Bonica wrote: ...I think that this is a case-by-case judgment call. In some cases (e.g., RFC 1475), the experiment is clearly over. IMO, allowing RFC 1475 to retain EXPERIMENTAL status detracts from the credibility of current experiments that share the label.I agree that it is case by case, so I don't really see the value in the IESG statement. If it's appropriate to write an experiment-terminating RFC, do so; if it's inappropriate, don't bother. That doesn't need any new legislation. Brian