Re: Use of RFC 2119 Language In Experimental RFCs

["James Kempf" <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com>]

> there has been different opinions within the IESG on this issue.
> What I've consistently argued for is that RFC 2119 language is an internal
> matter for the document - an experimental or informational protocol should
> have the same tools to specify how it is supposed to be used as
> standards-track protocols.
>
> The counterargument I've understood is that documents that use this
> language "look too much like standards-track protocols" - an argument I
> have not found convincing.
>

OK.

> Recently, it seems that the IESG has come down on my viewpoint.
> IESG folks - do we need to make an IESG statement on this?
>

I think it would be helpful. People are making more use of experimental
status nowadays, and it might clarify things. We've been having a big debate
in Seamoby and MIP about it.

Thanx.

            jak