On 3/9/09 11:14 AM, "Steven M. Bellovin" <s...@cs.columbia.edu> wrote:

> On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 11:07:10 -0700
> SM <s...@resistor.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> As the draft was not approved by the IESG as a "Proposed Standard",
>> the fact is that most people in the IETF community would not consider
>> it as a proposed standard.
>> 
>>    "The "Experimental" designation typically denotes a specification
>> that is part of some research or development effort.  Such a
>> specification is published for the general information of the
>> Internet technical community and as an archival record of the work,
>> subject only to editorial considerations and to verification that
>> there has been adequate coordination with the standards process."
>> 
>> Publication as an "Experimental" RFC does make a document a
>> standard.  The "Status of This Memo" which is prominently displayed
>> on the first page of the RFC mentions that:
>> 
>>    "This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
>>     community.  It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind."
> 
> Put another way, an Experimental RFC is no more an IETF standard than a
> conference or journal publication.  Someone has done something that is
> perceived to be of enough interest to the community to publish as an
> RFC, but it is manifestly *not* an IETF standard of any kind.
> 

The IETF might view it this way.  Large parts of the (standardization) world
does not.  One example in my field of work is FLUTE, and the surrounding
infrastructure of frameworks and FEC codes.  To the best of my recollection,
these specifications were originally issued as Experimental RFCs, for
reasons of congestion control worries.  (They are also heavily encumbered,
but that was not really an issue according to my recollection.)  The
Experimental status did not stop 3GPP and other SDOs to normatively
reference them, and treat them just like any other IETF RFC.  Note that 3GPP
could NOT do that with a journal publication...  I could name more examples,
both when it comes to referencing SDOs and referenced RFC types (including
normative references to at least Historic, Obsolete, Informational).

Stephan

> 
> --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Reply via email to