I think it would be good to see this discussed in YUL, and generally the WG does decide the level of the document but formally, the determination of the standards level is an IESG decision, as stated in https://tools.ietf.org/rfcmark up?doc=2026#section-6.1.2: <https://tools.ietf.org/rfcmarkup?doc=2026#section-6.1.2>
The IESG is not bound by the action recommended when the specification was submitted. For example, the IESG may decide to consider the specification for publication in a different category than that requested. If the IESG determines this before the Last- Call is issued then the Last-Call should reflect the IESG's view. The IESG could also decide to change the publication category based on the response to a Last-Call. If this decision would result in a specification being published at a "higher" level than the original Last-Call was for, a new Last-Call should be issued indicating the IESG recommendation. -Ekr On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 6:17 PM, Salz, Rich <[email protected] ..org> wrote: > There has been a discussion about the document status, which was set to > Proposed Standard. RFC 6962 itself is Experimental. After some > discussion > between authors, AD and chairs, we agreed that since the changes > between > 6962 and 6962bis are not trivial, and that we have no implementations > yet that validate that there are no implementation issues, that we > should > change the document status to Experimental. Please speak up if you > disagree with this decision. > > This needs to have consensus from the WG. It should not be a private > decision among the AD and chairs. The author is not the owner of the > document, it is not his to change. Are you doing a formal consensus call? > So far only Google has said they will strongly support 6292-bis > experiments. I would like to hear from others, especially those who are > participating in the current '6292 experiment' community -- log operators, > for example. > > In my limited experience, "speak up if you disagree" is used after there's > been discussion and it seems that a WG consensus is emerging. Discussing a > change > > I want this discussed in Montreal and then have consensus confirmed on the > list. > > > _______________________________________________ > Trans mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans >
_______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
