Hi Alvaro, as Roger pointed out there was no explicit discussion about informational vs experimental.
Certainly if the IESG feels that experimental is more suitable (which actually IMHO does) we can change the document intended status for both the management and allocation documents. For the dates, they can be adjusted before going in the roc editor queue. ciao L. > On 16 Feb 2016, at 09:51, Roger Jørgensen <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 11:42 PM, Alvaro Retana <[email protected]> wrote: > <snip> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> DISCUSS: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> This document describes a set of guidelines that will be used in an >> experiment. Why is it not an Experimental document? [I may have missed >> the discussion in the archive.] > > That's a good question. This document is the management part extracted > from the other draft so it copied the status from the other document. > I guess the question is if both should change status to Experimental > or if they're fine as they are? > > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> COMMENT: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> In the request template, the dates should match the ones in >> draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block: 2018 instead of 2017 and 2021 instead of 2020. > > They've been edited at different times, and it is a 3year experiment > so the date will have to be adjusted in both document if they're > approved, before they can be published. > > > > Other document is draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block > > -- > > Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE > [email protected] | - IPv6 is The Key! > http://www.jorgensen.no | [email protected] _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
