OK with me, Kathleen. Can you handle as an RFC editor note?
Cheers, Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: Kathleen Moriarty [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 11 April 2017 20:55 > To: Alissa Cooper > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; draft-ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use- > [email protected]; Mirja Kühlewind; IESG; [email protected] > Subject: Re: Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use- > cases-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) > > Hi Adrian, > > I think it's pretty clear that this should go down to informational > now. Thanks for raising the question and having the IESG weigh in as > the published statement did not cover whether these support document > should be informational only in nature. I do think that is the > current opinion and that they are fine to publish if the WG would like > to do so, but it's not encouraged. > > We could see about updating the statement to cover your point that > support documents are to be informational. > > Thank you, > Kathleen > > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Alissa Cooper <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Adrian, > > > > On Apr 11, 2017, at 2:34 PM, Adrian Farrel <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Thanks Mirja, > > I think it is best that you discuss this topic with the rest of the IESG and > > then we can be told what to do. > > > > (FWIW, I heard this conversation about 6 times in the 6 years I was on the > > IESG and the opinion swung back and forth. The IESG I was on never managed > > to get a clear position set down to guide the authors of future documents= _______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
