OPEN ISSUE: Standards Track

[Ted Lemon]

> Right.. which is why "Experimental" would be a good one.  What we want 
> is
> a stable specification to get some limited testing and deployment, 
> *NOT*
> widespread use.

One slightly draconian way to fix this problem would be to *require* 
that a spec go through experimental on the way to proposed.   Then 
there can't be a stigma, because every spec does it.   This would be a 
small inconvenience for trivial specifications, but probably a big win 
for the bigger specifications.   I don't think it would make sense to 
put all the specs that are nearly at proposed through this extra step 
now, but it might be a good thing to do for new drafts.