> >> 1. IRO-Survey > >> (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhody-pce-iro-survey/) > >> > > [JM] This was preliminary and necessary work for the following I-D. > > Not sure the overhead from authors/chairs/shepherds to reach RFC is > > required, but if the WG thinks otherwise, we may consider it.
My thoughts... As a contributor to the WG: We needed this to be sure that changing the IRO behaviour would not severely discombobulate anyone. We do not need it archived as an RFC. The I-D *is* now archived forever (even after expiring). If we want the material to continue to live (I don't think we really do) then putting it on the WG Wiki would be fine. As an AD: You will find it hard to get IESG support for publishing this as an RFC. Adrian _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
