Re: [tcpm] WGLC for UTO

Pasi Sarolahti wrote:
> Ok, I think you are right that it is hard to come up with well-defined
> experiments that would give some additional technical information about
> the UTO. But I don't understand where this requirement for experiments
> comes from. I also ask, because this "what is the experiment?" question
> has come up quite a few times during the past couple of years for
> Experimental documents in different WGs, and RFC 2026 does not say
> anything about experiments:
> 
>    The "Experimental" designation typically denotes a specification that
>    is part of some research or development effort.  Such a specification
>    is published for the general information of the Internet technical
>    community and as an archival record of the work, subject only to
>    editorial considerations and to verification that there has been
>    adequate coordination with the standards process (see below)....
> 
> (I believe many of the proposed TCP extensions are part of a research
> project.)

That has rarely been the case; more typically, the 'research' is being
conducted by the proposer and the Internet community at large to
determine the efficacy of a spec, and the 'experiment' is part of that
'research or development effort'.

Joe

Re: [tcpm] WGLC for UTO

Attachment: signature.asc