Subject: RE: [newtrk] Meeting discussion of ISDs- Experimental Protocols as core documents (outstanding)

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 06:42:43 +0200

John,

> Question: Can Experimental Protocols be core documents for ISDs,
> or does that take us too far down a slippery slope in which it
> is, again, not clear to readers what is, or is not a standard?
> 
> 		(Ok, my phrasing of that question probably tells you how
> 		I feel about it)

I think it is too far down the slippery slope.  The point of making
protocols experimental is because we are not sure if they should
be standards.  Also, by not making ISDs from experimental docs, we
provide some motivation for continuing to work on experimental 
protocols so that they can become ISDs.

> Question: Can experimental documents be referenced, presumably
> non-normatively, as part of an ISD build around a
> standards-track core document?
> 
> 		(I think the answer to this has got to be "yes", but
> 		thought I'd ask)

Yes they can.

John L.

.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 19:37:38 -0800

> protocols so that they can become ISDs.

Unfortunately, we tend to leave things as experimental when we ought to 
reclassify them at some point.

IMO, the purpose of ISDs is exclusively for protocols we think ought to 
be 'out there'. Anything still experimental ought to be reclassified 
before being considered eligible for its own ISD.

>>		(I think the answer to this has got to be "yes", but

I agree.