+1 That was the key line that I took from the guidelines as well and this was my understanding of the discussion in Toronto.
-- Justin On Sep 11, 2014, at 12:02 PM, John Bradley <[email protected]> wrote: > I think this fits. > > • If the IETF may publish something based on this on the standards > track once we know how well this one works, it's Experimental. This is the > typical case of not being able to decide which protocol is "better" before we > have experience of dealing with them from a stable specification. Case in > point: "PGM Reliable Transport Protocol Specification" (RFC 3208) > > If we publish something it may or may not look like the current spec but > getting some experience with the current spec will inform that decision. > > John B. > On Sep 11, 2014, at 12:55 PM, Phil Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Interesting. The definitions in that don't correspond with what ADs and >> other groups are doing. >> >> I heard httpbis using experimental as a placeholder for a draft that didn't >> have full consensus to bring back later. >> >> That was the feel I had in Toronto-that we weren't done but it was time to >> publish something. >> >> Reading the actual definition i would say neither fits. Ugh. >> >> Phil >> >>> On Sep 11, 2014, at 8:01, "Richer, Justin P." <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> According to the guidelines here: >>> >>> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/informational-vs-experimental.html >>> >>> And the discussion in Toronto, it's clearly experimental. >>> >>> -- Justin >>> >>>> On Sep 11, 2014, at 10:36 AM, Anthony Nadalin <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Is "experimental" the correct classification? Maybe "informational" is >>>> more appropriate as both of these were discussed. >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: OAuth [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Hannes Tschofenig >>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 4:50 PM >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Dynamic Client Registration Management Protocol: Next >>>> Steps? >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> in response to the discussions at the last IETF meeting the authors of the >>>> "Dynamic Client Registration Management Protocol" >>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-management-05 have >>>> changed the document type to "Experimental". >>>> >>>> We need to make a decision about the next steps for the document and we >>>> see the following options: >>>> >>>> a) Publish it as an experimental RFC >>>> >>>> b) Remove it from the working group and ask an AD to shepherd it >>>> >>>> c) Remove it from the working group and let the authors publish it via the >>>> independent submission track. >>>> >>>> In any case it would be nice to let folks play around with it and then, >>>> after some time, come back to determine whether there is enough interest >>>> to produce a standard. >>>> >>>> Please let us know what you think! >>>> >>>> Ciao >>>> Hannes & Derek >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> OAuth mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OAuth mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OAuth mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
