Subject: Advancing input documents to RFC experimental status

From: Roy Badami <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 02:15:29 +0100

Is it still intended to publish the input documents of this WG as
experimental RFCs?

Given that the current WG drafts reference these documents as
informative references, it would seem appropriate if these could
reference teh RFCs rather than IDs or non-IETF documents.

But it would obviously be undesirable if a delay in this process
caused significant delay to the publishing of any MARID RFCs.

Has any progress been made on this?

   -roy

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 06:49:38 -0400

> Is it still intended to publish the input documents of this WG as

This is my understanding.  However, I do not see them in the pub queue. 
  I'll ask the PTB.

-andy

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 07:50:28 -0700

Andrew,

>> Is it still intended to publish the input documents of this WG as

AN> This is my understanding.  However, I do not see them in the pub queue. 
AN>   I'll ask the PTB.

I'm a little confused.

If these are really "input" documents, then their job is to provide
input, rather than to get used further in the IETF context.  Hence, it
makes sense for them to get an Informational label, rather than
Experimental.

Experimental means 'take this specification and try it out'.  It hardly
makes sense to have "input" documents occupy a position that puts them
roughly into competition with the working group output documents.

d/
--
 Dave Crocker <mailto:[email-masked]>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>