There are two different potential intentions to 'Experimental': 1. to conduct an experiment, as Eliot notes below, i.e., to gain experience that a protocol 'does good' 'in the wild'
2. to gain experience that a protocol does no harm 'in the wild' I think of IETF Experimental track as being more about #2 than #1. #1 may be the responsibility of the proponents, but given the IETF doesn't even conduct conformance testing for standards-track, it it seems overzealous to expect it to verify a scientific procedure for experimental-track. The document should definitely state why experimental is chosen - what the concerns are, and what to look out for (as to #1). But I would stop well short of specifying theses, procedures, etc. (#2) for this track. Joe Eliot Lear wrote: > Brian, > > It would seem to me that the purpose of an experimental RFC is to let > people perform and participate in (rather public) experiments on the > Internet. A reasonable standard for "experimental" is that there be a > thesis and a procedure so that the experiment can be repeated, > observations can be made, and conclusions can be drawn. The thesis > should be clear as to what is being tested, and it should at least pass > the laugh test. Further, the standard for design of the experiment > should provide for the least practicable interference with other ongoing > operations (experimental or not). > > So, is that simple enough or too simplistic? > > Eliot > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
