There seems to be some confusion. The charter says that this document will be Informational, and it has always been in the Tracker as Informational.
Russ At 08:26 PM 2/20/2008, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >On 2008-02-21 13:02, Russ Housley wrote: > > Brian: > > > > You provided a very strong review. The response seems to be to go > > forward as Informational instead of Proposed Standard (you advocated > > Experimental). Does this seem like an acceptable direction to you? If > > not, who not? > >Well, that implies that at least some people agree with my concerns. >It would be well within the IESG's rights to tell me I'm worried >about nothing. But assuming people do share my concerns, I think >publishing this off the standards track is entirely reasonable - >it's thoughtful work, and with experience could be tightened up >into normative material. > >Looking at non-ION http://www.ietf.org/u/ietfchair/info-exp.html >makes me wonder why Guideline 3 applies instead of Guideline 4 >(which would make it Experimental) but that is certainly not my >decision. > > Brian _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
