>> >>> 2.In general I was wondering why this is an Informational document. It >>> defines procedures and has normative language. >>> >> >> That sounds like kind of an unfortunate bug. For some reason, it changed >> from Standards Track to Informational between versions -00 and -01. >> However, we want it standards-track with a normative downreference to >> radsec. Can it be done at this moment or does it require a more complex >> process? > > Hmm. The shepherd write-up says informational is correct. If the WG > chairs want to, we can re-spin the IETF LC. But this has been so > long in the process and has slowly so I'd prefer to not do that > unless someone really cares, and it makes a difference. > > For now, I've kept this on the Dec17 IESG telechat as informational > but if needed we can push it into the new year. >
fwiw - 2026 requeres a new LC if there is to be a increase in the status (info to studs track) Scott _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
