On 07/07/2017 12:12, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 11:57:36AM -0700, Steven M Jones wrote: >> Would there be a proposed schedule for that evaluation to take place? > It's a good question, but I have two responses: > > 1. IETF timelines are worth approximately what one pays for them :)
:D > 2. The lack of criteria by which to evaluate the experiment was > itself one of the reasons offered for not undertaking a move from > experimental sooner. So not having the criteria will do nothing to > prevent the dragging on. (Of course, not classifying as experimental > _will_ prevent that dragging on, but comes with the downsides that > Dave was suggesting.) I may be misreading your response, but I wasn't suggesting a timeline without criteria. I would hope to see criteria and a provisional timeline for when to apply them. "A, B, and C will be tracked and evaluated at IETF 101, next move to be decided then" or something vaguely similar. Perhaps the criteria would be included in the RFC, and the review would be added to the WG's work items? I'm not sure how it's usually done... Do Experimental RFCs ever get expiration dates as a forcing function, the way Internet Drafts do? --S. _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
