Ira,
Our original request was for the document to be an "Informational" RFC.
However, Bert Wijnen proposed that it be published as "Experimental".
I did query whether "Experimental" implied that the document was on the
standards track. The response was - no, a protocol can move from
"Experimental" to standards track, but it is not considered to be on the
standards track merely due to its "Experimental" status. (This may not
agree with the IETF procedure RFCs, but this was the response.)
It might be worth the effort to try again for a Standards Track
publication. I will draft my request for IESG consideration with this as
the goal. If several of us review and work on this proposal, we may be
able to put together a strong argument. (I will plan to have the initial
draft to the DL early next week.)
Chris and Lloyd, are you willing to present a proposal for standards
track?
Ron Bergman
Dataproducts Corp.
On Wed, 17 Mar 1999, Ira McDonald wrote:
> Hi Ron,
>> Thanks for clarifying. By the way, the PWG Job Mon MIB which
> was rejected by the IETF for standards track therefore CANNOT
> be published as 'Experimental' rather than 'Informational'.
>> The IETF standard process reserves 'Experimental' for products
> of IETF-chartered working groups that are future 'standards
> track' (ie, Proposed Standard) products.
>> I sure wish we could revisit the Job Mon MIB chartering
> with the IETF, because it is closely coupled with both
> IPP (same states and reasons and a superset of attributes)
> and Printer MIB. Would it be worth approaching Keith
> Moore and Patrick Faltstrom (our IETF Applications ADs)??
>> Cheers,
> - Ira McDonald
>>