Fair cop, in terms of our process, although the document is written in a style that calls for implementation.
Brian On 2008-02-22 06:15, Russ Housley wrote: > 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
