Given that I have no formal say in the matter, I believe that this is best
dealt with by Russ and Brian.
My job was to raise the issue.
Yours,
Joel
At 10:50 AM 1/15/2006, Eric Rescorla wrote:
Joel M. Halpern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My concern is that it is very rare for the IETF to define bits on the
> wire in Informational RFCs. It is done for outside contributions, but
> not usually for our own work.
>
> Typically, if there is concern about standardization, we put something
> as experimental.
Yes, but that's typically not for IPR reasons but rather for concerns
about protocol quality. That's not the issue here and there's no
intention to take this to Standards Track--at least until the IPR
situation changes. Given that, it seems to me that Experimental
is inappropriate.
> If this is chosen for experimental due to IPR concerns, it would seem
> to make sense to say something about that IPR situation in the
> document, to explain why this is not standards track.
This is exactly the kind of notice that RFC 3979 Section 11
implies that one should not have in RFCs.
> Otherwise, labeling informational / experimental actually does not
> help readers much.
I don't agree with this.
However, at this point this is an issue for the IESG.
-Ekr
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
