Hi Robin,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Robin 
> Whittle
> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 10:11 PM
> To: RRG
> Subject: Re: [rrg] Pumping IRON - steps to making Experimental / 
> StandardsTrack RFCs
> 
> Hi Tony,
> 
> Sorry for tentatively mis-underestanding your statement.  However, I
> don't understand this:
> 
>   Thus, the only thing that an AD would spend the political
>   capital on would be something controversial.
> 
> 
> I believe that my musing about paths to an experimental RFC was
> uninformed.  Someone who knows much more about this than me wrote to
> me offlist with:
> 
>    There are in fact 4 different ways to get an experimental RFC
>    published.
> 
>       It can be published as an IETF WG Product.
> 
>       It can be published as an AD Sponsored Individual document.
> 
>       It can be published as an IRTF sponsored document.
> 
>       It can be published as an Independent Submission, subject to
>       review arranged by the ISE.
> 
>    Only one of those four requires a working group, and only two
>    of them involve the IETF.
> 
> I still think that for an experimental protocol to be developed well
> - with RFCs or not - there needs to be a bunch of people to work
> either directly on the protocol and its software, test network etc.
> or to take a keen interest in it and provide feedback.

I can tell you from the ISATAP and SEAL experiences that
experimental is quite possible going as an individual sub
and without strong backing from a bunch of people. There
doesn't even have to be any running code (although running
code is always helpful). For that matter, at one time
interoperating independent implementations were not even
required for Proposed Standard - they are only required
for going to Draft Standard (maybe this has changed?).

One thing to note, however, is that I am going to
re-categorize IRON as Experimental in the -10 today. I
had it at Informational, but we will want to encourage
people to experiment with it so I guess we should
categorize it as such.

Thanks - Fred
[email protected] 
 
>   - Robin
> _______________________________________________
> rrg mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg

Reply via email to