Re: "why I quit writing internet standards"

Thomas Clausen <> Wed, 16 April 2014 14:24 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 082D41A0132 for <>; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 07:24:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B69HyWy1A4R1 for <>; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 07:24:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 011861A01E1 for <>; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 07:24:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB48E1BDE2C0; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 07:24:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 443D71BDE2BE; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 07:24:44 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
Subject: Re: "why I quit writing internet standards"
From: Thomas Clausen <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 16:24:42 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Yoav Nir <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 08:20:28 -0700
Cc: " List" <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 14:24:51 -0000

On 16 Apr 2014, at 16:14, Yoav Nir <> wrote:

> On Apr 16, 2014, at 5:01 PM, Wesley Eddy <> 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.

Hum....I do know that there are experimental protocols that have IANA allocations (though, that may be from the olden days), and I think that there's nothing preventing an Experimental from setting up IANA registries on its own.

Furthermore, that "coordination" you talk about....wouldn't simply documenting that in the Experimental RFC suffice:

	"For the purpose of the experiments, documented in this RFC, use UDP port XXXXX, 
	 message type YYY, and error codes A, B and C from the register xxxx. Note that these
	 codepoints all are from the private/experimental spaces of their respective registries, and
	 that therefore this section does not represent IANA allocations"

Sure, the RFC would get an RFC number, but that's about it.