[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Google
  Web www.spinics.net

Re: Proposed IESG Statement on the Conclusion of Experiments



Any reason why I cannot see the e-mail to which this is a reply?

It never arrived at my MUA, which could well be my MUA, but it is not in the
ietf archives either which suggests ....?  I seem to recall this happening
before from the same e-mail address on this same list.

What else am I, and I assume others, missing?

Tom Petch


----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Crocker" <dcrocker@xxxxxxxx>
To: "Scott O Bradner" <sob@xxxxxxxxx>; <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <wgchairs@xxxxxxxx>; <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 11:00 PM
Subject: Re: Proposed IESG Statement on the Conclusion of Experiments


> +1
>
>
> /d
>
> --
> Dave Crocker
> bbiw.net
>
> via mobile
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott O Bradner <sob@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: wgchairs@xxxxxxxx, ietf@xxxxxxxx
> Sent: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 1:48 PM
> Subject: Re: Proposed IESG Statement on the Conclusion of Experiments
>
> encouraging a report is fine
>
> retracting the code points seems to add more confusion than it is worth unless
the
> code space is very tight
>
> and I see no reason to obsolete the experimental rfc or move it to historic
status unless the report is
> that some bad thing happens when you try it out - updating the old rfc is fine
>
> and I agree with Elliot about the nature of research - it is very common to
not
> reach a conclusion that something is bad (as in bad for the net) - and that is
the
> only case where I think that an experiment should be flagged as a don't go
there situation
>
> Scott
>
>
> On Apr 19, 2012, at 4:31 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>
> > All,
> >
> > The IESG has been discussing how to tidy up after Experimental RFCs.
> >
> > We have developed the following draft IESG statement. This does not
> > represent a change in process, and continues to value Experimental RFCs
> > as an important part of the IETF process. It does, however, seek to
> > encourage documentation of the conclusion of experiments.
> >
> > We are aware that there may be other discussion points around
> > Experimental RFCs, and we would like to discuss these, but we also
> > believe that there is merit in making small, incremental improvements.
> >
> > The IESG would welcome your thoughts on this draft before they approve
> > the final text on April 26th.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Adrian
> >
> > =============
> >
> > IESG Statement on Conclusion of IETF Experiments
> >
> >
> > Experiments are an established and valuable part of the IETF process.
> > A number of core Internet protocols were first published as Experimental
> > RFCs while the community gathered experience and carefully investigated
> > the consequences of deploying new mechanisms within the Internet.
> >
> > In the case where an experiment leads on to the development of a
> > Standards Track RFC documenting a protocol, the new RFC obsoletes the
> > old Experimental RFC and there is a clear conclusion to the experiment.
> >
> > However, many experiments do not lead to the development of Standards
> > Track RFCs. Instead, the work may be abandoned through lack of interest
> > or because important lessons have been learned.
> >
> > It is currently hard to distinguish between an experiment that is still
> > being investigated, and an old experiment that has ceased to be of
> > interest to the community. In both cases an Experimental RFC exists in
> > the repository and newcomers might easily be misled into thinking that
> > it would be helpful to conduct more research into an abandoned
> > experiment.
> >
> > 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
> >
> > - obsoletes the Experimental RFC
> >
> > - if appropriate, deprecate any IANA code points allocated for the
> >  experiment
> >
> > - may request that the Experimental RFC is moved to Historic status.
> >
> > If there is no energy in the community for the producing such an
> > Informational RFC, if the authors have moved on to other things, or if
> > the Working Group has been closed down, Area Directors should author or
> > seek volunteers to author such an Informational RFC.
> >
>
>




[IETF Annoucements]     [IETF Obscurity Interest]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux]     [Pilates]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]

Add to Google