> On 10 Dec 2015, at 14:02, Scott Bradner <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> >>>> 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)
Yes, that is understood. I (document shepherd) actually consulted RFC2026 on this because I was in doubt, and since there is mentioning of "Specifications that have been prepared outside of the Internet community” and part of this spec is OASIS’ domain, I found informational defensible. As it turns out the change to informational was accidental. I’ll discuss with the authors. Klaas _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
