I agree with everything Scott wrote. I don't see a good reason for removing code points from a registry, unless very exceptional cases (range is almost full need more space), which could be processed as one-off, not as a regular process.
Marc. Le 2012-04-19 à 16:48, Scott O Bradner a écrit : > encouraging a report is fine > > retracting the code points seems to add more confusion than it is worth > unless the > code space is very tight > > and I see no reason to obsolete the experimental rfc or move it to historic > status unless the report is > that some bad thing happens when you try it out - updating the old rfc is fine > > and I agree with Elliot about the nature of research - it is very common to > not > reach a conclusion that something is bad (as in bad for the net) - and that > is the > only case where I think that an experiment should be flagged as a don't go > there situation > > Scott > > > On Apr 19, 2012, at 4:31 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > >> All, >> >> 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. >> >> We are aware that there may be other discussion points around >> Experimental RFCs, and we would like to discuss these, but we also >> believe that there is merit in making small, incremental improvements. >> >> The IESG would welcome your thoughts on this draft before they approve >> the final text on April 26th. >> >> Thanks, >> Adrian >> >> ============= >> >> IESG Statement on Conclusion of IETF Experiments >> >> >> Experiments are an established and valuable part of the IETF process. >> A number of core Internet protocols were first published as Experimental >> RFCs while the community gathered experience and carefully investigated >> the consequences of deploying new mechanisms within the Internet. >> >> In the case where an experiment leads on to the development of a >> Standards Track RFC documenting a protocol, the new RFC obsoletes the >> old Experimental RFC and there is a clear conclusion to the experiment. >> >> However, many experiments do not lead to the development of Standards >> Track RFCs. Instead, the work may be abandoned through lack of interest >> or because important lessons have been learned. >> >> It is currently hard to distinguish between an experiment that is still >> being investigated, and an old experiment that has ceased to be of >> interest to the community. In both cases an Experimental RFC exists in >> the repository and newcomers might easily be misled into thinking that >> it would be helpful to conduct more research into an abandoned >> experiment. >> >> In view of this, the original proponents of experiments (that is, >> authors of Experimental RFCs, and Working Groups that requested the >> publication of Experimental RFCs) are strongly encouraged to document >> the termination of experiments that do not result in subsequent >> Standards Track work by publishing an Informational RFC that: >> >> - very briefly describes the results of the experiment >> >> - obsoletes the Experimental RFC >> >> - if appropriate, deprecate any IANA code points allocated for the >> experiment >> >> - may request that the Experimental RFC is moved to Historic status. >> >> If there is no energy in the community for the producing such an >> Informational RFC, if the authors have moved on to other things, or if >> the Working Group has been closed down, Area Directors should author or >> seek volunteers to author such an Informational RFC. >>
