OPEN ISSUE: Standards Track

[Ted Lemon]

> Of course, in a few years we will have raised the bar for Experimental.
> So we need to introduce another new name. But luckily, since Draft has
> then not been used for a while, we can simply introduce a new model
> which has Draft->Proposed->Standard. :-)

Don't experimental RFCs have warnings all over them about not deploying 
them widely?   Anyway, that brings up another point, which I think is 
the real problem - it is not "Experimental" or "Proposed" or "Draft" or 
"Standard" that makes something a standard in the eyes of the wider 
Internet developer community.  Unfortunately, it is "RFC," despite the 
fact that "RFC" stands for Request For Comments.

What about using a different TLA for experimental than for other RFCs?  
  Like "XCR" - Experimental, Comments Requested.   XCRs would have the 
same degree of permanence in the IETF's RFC distribution as RFCs, but 
wouldn't have the much-coveted "RFC" TLA applied to them, and thus 
wouldn't be considered standards in the same way that something that 
has the RFC TLA is.   I-Ds could be IPD (Informational Protocol 
Description) instead of RFC, and so on.