On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 12:47 AM, joel jaeggli <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 6/26/16 6:38 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote: > > There has been no discussion on the GROW mailing list about having this > > document published as Standards Track rather than informational and it's > > coming as a surprise to see that this was only announced at IESG Last > > Call a couple of days ago. At the least, there ought to be some > > discussion about this before pushing it up into the publication queue. > > The looking back at the document that was WGLCed (which is the current > version) the state was standards track. the individual sumbission draft > draft-ymbk-grow-blackholing-00 was flagged as such since initial > submission. It's status therefore I think is well understood. Whether > that's appropriate or not is another question. > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-grow-blackholing/ has it marked as PS... which I too thought was correct. -chris
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
