On 10/28/2010 12:22 EDT, RJ Atkinson wrote: > On Weds, 27th October 2010, at 13:56:25 -0700, Bob Braden wrote in part: >> In this environment, the only thing that seems to make sense >> is for WGs to start usually at Experimental (someone else >> suggested this, I apologize for not recalling who it was). > > Agreed. > > Most times it would be better if IETF WGs initially create > an Experimental status RFC, possibly doing so quite rapidly, > and then later revise that (based on at experience) and > publish the revision on the IETF standards-track.
Given how many WGs these days in fact seem to start from "let's develop something and see if we can make it useful", this wouldn't be too bad. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
