On 6/23/06, Paul Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It is not correct that they *need* to be, but there is no reason for them not to be. In general: - If a protocol is worked on in an open context, standards track is preferred
The most important parts of an "open" context are well-documented decisions. That didn't happen here. It is surely appropriate for IETF members to suggest an alternate status for the document, no matter what the IESG eventually decides. In this case, an appeal to "the rules" was made, but RFC 2026 does not place limits on the sort of feedback the community may give. In effect, an effort was made to end the discussion, rather than address the issue. I don't feel the community has control of this document, and that bothers me. n.b. -- not inviting a rebuttal. -- Robert Sayre
