Hi ekr, Welcome to the treadmill :-)
> I'm also somewhat surprised this is being advanced as Standards Track, > given that it doesn't have any normative content, and becaus ehte > writeup says that there isn't commitment to implement this. > I won't hold a DISCUSS on this, but I would suggest it be > Informational. Don't be too surprised as the shepherd write-up touches on this. While the IESG has done some work on relaxing downref rules, the WGs still struggle with how to handle foundation documents that will be essential reading (i.e., normative references) for later work. My advice to the WG for this document was, "Push it through as Standards Track and let the IESG worry about whether it should be Informational or not." I think my advice will remain, "Let the IESG tell us what to do, and we will do it. But don't go making changes unless instructed to do so." Cheers, Adrian _______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
