Hi Lars,
I was just typing a similar response to Eliot and Scott.
Clearly the IESG does not have authority over the IRTF stream.
I had thought this context ant the limitation to the IETF stream was clear in
the initial blurb ("Experiments are an established and valuable part of the IETF
process.") but obviously I was wrong :-)
We will add clarification of this point to the statement.
Thanks,
Adrian
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eggert, Lars [mailto:l...@netapp.com]
> Sent: 20 April 2012 08:31
> To: <adr...@olddog.co.uk>
> Cc: <ietf@ietf.org>; <wgcha...@ietf.org>; <i...@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: Proposed IESG Statement on the Conclusion of Experiments
>
> Hi,
>
> On Apr 19, 2012, at 22:31, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> > 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.
>
> any IESG statement would only cover Experimental RFCs on the IETF Stream,
> right?
>
> Lars
