Re: Experimental (was: Re: homework, not an experiment, draft-crocker-email-deliveredto)

On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 9:47 AM Dave Crocker <[email protected]> wrote:

> There are a number of possible reasons for seeking Experimental status
> to an RFC:
>
>       1. The technology is defines is not yet understood well enough and
> there are concerns that its functionality, reliability, or the like
> might not behave as intended
>
>       2. The proposed use of the technology might go beyond established
> practice and the expanded use might need vetting
>
>       3. The technology might not scale adequately for Internet use
>
>       4. The market might not be sufficiently interested in the
> technology to choose to use it
>
>       5. The documentation of the technology might need wider review and
> comment
>
> The current draft probably qualifies under more than one of these.
>

I suggest considering BCP 9, which defines "Experimental" thus:

   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 [...]

(Then again, BCP 9 has been updated over a dozen times, and I may have
missed an extended definition in one of those.)

I can see why people might find it odd to claim that something dating back
to the 1990s, as this draft says, is being categorized as an R&D effort
today.

Perhaps the Introduction might be amended to explain this perceived
discrepancy?

-MSK

_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp