On May 17, 2006, at 10:02 AM, Robert Sayre wrote:
Well, you clearly don't think they're important. But then you felt compelled to change them back and got an instant stamp of approval from our AD. What happened there?
I read this as implying causality between two events. Those two events happened to be near each other in time but weren't causally related. The changes just before the last revision had no impact on my decision to post an IETF Last Call for moving this proposal onto the standards track. It could not have had an impact because I wasn't so closely tuned into the revisions of this draft that I noticed any particular change -- I just reviewed the version presented to me with the shepherding request.
My decision to shepherd this document was because I was asked, read the proposal, and felt it was not obviously too harmful and could be useful. It's customary to ask the advising AD for a WG, to shepherd a document closely related to that WG.
My decision to recommend Standards Track was because I saw evidence of multiple independent implementations and even some interoperability testing.
I could still recommend Experimental instead of Standards Track if I learned of some possible harm to security/privacy or Internet health, or some deep barrier to interoperability, but I have not yet learned of a high enough risk+severity of such concerns to change my mind there.
I would be less likely to recommend Informational status for a document like this which has been implemented and has normative statements intended for implementors (e.g. it's not a requirements document or a design overview). Confusingly, Informational is also used sometimes for documents which do not undergo significant community review (e.g. RFC-Editor submissions) but the 4-week IETF last call, previous postings to this list, and comments of implementors, combine to make this document one that is getting significant community review.
I hope that makes the situation clearer! Lisa
