Hi Andrew, Sorry for the delay.
Andrew Alston via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> writes: > I've been sitting trying to work out in my mind if a BCP document should be > requesting code points - and if I should change the position from a no > objection to a discuss - and the more I think about this - I feel that a > discuss here is probably the right option. My understanding is that the IESG resolved this DISCUSS during the IESG meeting and that it's to remain a BCP. > Having read through the document, I would also like to support Paul's discuss > since the document does seem to update RFC5155. I also would like to second > what Murray said about it seeming a little strange to see a BCP document > updating a standards track document. The next version will indeed have an update clause. > Finally - I was a little surprised to see IANA actions in a document > entitled "guidance for...." - not sure if anyone else agrees with me, > but it seems strange to see a BCP document requesting IANA actions So the IANA action is asking for an EDE code point. I believe this was also resolved in the IESG teleconference too. -- Wes Hardaker USC/ISI _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
