> -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Barry > Leiba > Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 5:50 PM > To: ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Second Last Call: <draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message- > 08.txt> (Sieve Notification Mechanism: SIP MESSAGE) to Proposed > Standard > > > The document could be restricted to Experimental status, but that > > presumes the status matters as much as or more than the RFC number. I > > don't know if that's true or not in this case. > > That, too, strikes me as a cure that's worse than the disease. > "Experimental" isn't a punishment, and I think it would be a horrid > idea to use the document's status in that way. [...]
I think my suggestion was based on the premise of a past contentious working group whose outputs were reduced to Experimental by the IESG, and part of the contention was objectionable IPR claims. I think in retrospect that was not quite right; the IPR claims were a problem with the personalities in the room, but they were not direct causes of the status changes. So probably not a well-founded suggestion in the end. -MSK _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
