Hi Michael, > On Oct 10, 2025, at 11:49 AM, Michael Richardson <[email protected]> wrote: > > Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > wrote: >> ## COMMENTS (non-blocking) > >> ### Why informational ? > >> The shepherd write-up is rather silent on the intended status of >> informational >> as it seems to me that proposed standard would be a better fit. > > Informational Seems wrong. > I see that the document declares that, and I think that's a copy'n'paste > mistake. > It should be std. At one point, we were told that only IETF-stream STD could > create certain categories of registry, and that's why we couldn't go ISE.
I am not sure that it is a cut/paste error. See this thread on the topic. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/opsawg/?q=draft-ietf-opsawg-pcaplinktype My reading of the thread was that if the only requirement for making a PS was to create a registry, that there are examples of an Informational RFC creating IANA registries. A better justification would need to be provided to make it a PS and the Shepherd’s report will need to be updated to reflect the change. Thanks. Mahesh Jethanandani [email protected]
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
