Re: "why I quit writing internet standards"

[Yoav Nir <[e-mail]>]

On Apr 16, 2014, at 5:01 PM, Wesley Eddy <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 4/16/2014 9:31 AM, Thomas Clausen wrote:
>> 
>> FWIW, my personal belief is that "running code" should be a
>> requirement for anything going std. track -- and that a (mandatory)
>> period as Experimental prior to go std. track would yield the stable
>> spec against which to reasonably build code, and run
>> (interoperability) tests, fix bugs, etc. If after (pulling a number
>> out my hat here) a year as Experimental there's no running code, then
>> that's probably a good indicator, also, as to if this is something
>> the IETF should bother doing....
>> 
> 
> 
> If there's no running code, or pretty concrete plans and commitments
> to get there, then there's really no need for an Experimental RFC that
> will get a number and last forever.  An I-D that expires in direct
> conjunction with the interest and energy in it is just fine.

Except that an I-D usually doesn’t get IANA allocations, so you use a number from the private space, and you have to coordinate with anyone who wants to interoperate about which private number to use.