Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") side meeting at IETF105.)

[john heasley <[e-mail]>]

Sat, Jul 06, 2019 at 12:44:14PM -0700, Eric Rescorla:
> On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 11:55 AM Theodore Ts'o <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> > I suspect people have been jumping off to something which is harder,
> > and perhaps for them, more interesting, which is signalling that a
> > particular I-D version is one that is worthy of being implemented, and
> > perhaps, deployed in a world where new implementations can be reliably
> > rolled out to a large percentage of the installed base in 2-3 months.
> > One answer is of course the experimental RFC, but the problem is that
> > a lot of people see RFC and immediately assume, it's a stable,
> > IETF-blessed standard documentation, regardless of the "Experimental"
> > tag on the top of every single page of said document.
> >
> 
> An experimental RFC would not address the need I am talking about: we're
> spinning one of these every 1-4 months, and doing WGLC, IETF-LC, and RFC
> processing would cause far too much delay.
> 
> -Ekr

exactly; neither experimental nor informational address the desire completely.