Hi, I sort of agree that no new legislation is needed, and I don't read the statement as legislation.
But it is clear that, with the exception of promotion of Experimental RFCs onto the Standards Track, this function has not been happening. It makes sense (I think) to set expectations. Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com] > Sent: 20 April 2012 08:20 > To: Ronald Bonica > Cc: Scott O Bradner; adr...@olddog.co.uk; wgcha...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; > i...@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Proposed IESG Statement on the Conclusion of Experiments > > On 2012-04-19 23:27, Ronald Bonica wrote: > ... > > I think that this is a case-by-case judgment call. In some cases (e.g., RFC > > 1475), > the experiment is clearly over. IMO, allowing RFC 1475 to retain EXPERIMENTAL > status detracts from the credibility of current experiments that share the > label. > > I agree that it is case by case, so I don't really see the value in the > IESG statement. If it's appropriate to write an experiment-terminating > RFC, do so; if it's inappropriate, don't bother. That doesn't need > any new legislation. > > Brian
