Yoshihiro Ohba wrote: > Hi David, > > On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 08:31:36PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> Ohba-san, >> >> Thank you for your response. I have a few comments: >> >> 1) The Informational vs. Standards-track RFC issue is for the ADs >> to decide. >> > > OK. > Please disregard the last statement - I misread the email exchange.
I see now that David actually quoted the following: > The PANA framework document specifies components that are part of a > complete secure network access solution, but are outside of the PANA > protocol specification. People who consider deployment of PANA and > implements the PANA protocol need to pay attention to the requirements > described in in the PANA framework document. And then said: > Regarding whether this document should be a standard track document or > an informational document, I personally think that this should be a > standard track document for the same reason you mentioned above, but > I'd like to hear opinion from WG chairs and ADs. I still agree with David, and can see the argument for this being standards track based on this logic. I'd like input from other IESG members though. - Mark _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
