Re: [tcpm] Adopting draft-fairhurst-tcpm-newcwv

[Pasi Sarolahti <[e-mail]>]

On Dec 3, 2012, at 11:02 AM, <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 
> I suggested "PS" - largely because I did not see a need for a specific
> experiment if the WG successfully finished the draft (and know it can be
> implemented).

RFC 2026 does not require that Experimental RFC defines any specific experiment. 

> Here's my thinking:

Thanks, useful reasoning about both cases.

[...]

> To me, I just want to get it deployed, and  recognise that the final
> status will only be determined at the end of the standards process. I'm
> happy to add/update whatever the draft with  text the WG suggests at the
> start of this draft - e.g. explaining why the draft needs to be EXP or why
> the standards status could change from PS to EXP as the work progresses.
> Other thoughts?

It would be best if we could decide on the status early, because it may affect how people review the document. If the WG is not confident about going for PS (for example, if people feel the design options have not been sufficiently investigated), then EXP should be the default option, I think. On the other hand, if we had to change the status at a late phase, I'd be much more comfortable at downgrading from PS to EXP than promoting a document to PS after people have thought they have been looking at an experimental document.

I think it is a good idea to add some text discussing the status, for example based on what you had in the Email. This could be something to be removed from the final version, but might support us in discussing this issue further, for example in the next meeting.

- Pasi