Subject: (ngtrans) my opinion

From: Bob Fink <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 18:22:11 -0800

In looking at the RFC 2026 section 4.2 extract below, it seems to me that
either Experimental or Informational can easily apply.  Also, the section
4.2 overview notes that a specification "may be intended for eventual
standardization but not yet ready to enter the standards track". Thus it
does not preclude Experimental/Informational now, and standards track later.

My recommendation would be to ask, for each tools/mechanisms draft that we
are forwarding, if we want Informational or Standards track processing and
proceed accordingly. I have asked the question on SIIT on the list, have
heard the sentiment from Grenoble, and am not hearing anything that
dissuades from Informational.

Tony can have the last word on this one, but I for one think we have beat
it to death.

Thanks,

Bob

===from RFC 2026
>4.2  Non-Standards Track Maturity Levels
>
>   Not every specification is on the standards track.  A specification
>   may not be intended to be an Internet Standard, or it may be intended
>   for eventual standardization but not yet ready to enter the standards
>   track.  A specification may have been superseded by a more recent
>   Internet Standard, or have otherwise fallen into disuse or disfavor.
>
>   Specifications that are not on the standards track are labeled with
>   one of three "off-track" maturity levels:  "Experimental",
>   "Informational", or "Historic".  The documents bearing these labels
>   are not Internet Standards in any sense.
>
>4.2.1  Experimental
>
>   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).  An
>   Experimental specification may be the output of an organized Internet
>   research effort (e.g., a Research Group of the IRTF), an IETF Working
>   Group, or it may be an individual contribution.
>
>Bradner                  Best Current Practice                 [Page 14]
>RFC 2026               Internet Standards Process           October 1996
>
>4.2.2  Informational
>
>   An "Informational" specification is published for the general
>   information of the Internet community, and does not represent an
>   Internet community consensus or recommendation.  The Informational
>   designation is intended to provide for the timely publication of a
>   very broad range of responsible informational documents from many
>   sources, subject only to editorial considerations and to verification
>   that there has been adequate coordination with the standards process
>   (see section 4.2.3).
>
>   Specifications that have been prepared outside of the Internet
>   community and are not incorporated into the Internet Standards
>   Process by any of the provisions of section 10 may be published as
>   Informational RFCs, with the permission of the owner and the
>   concurrence of the RFC Editor.
-end