Thank you very much for your review, Robert. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for assembling such a clearly written document. >>>>> >>>>> The shepherd writeup should have discussed _why_ this document is >>>>> intended for Proposed Standard. >>>>> There is no protocol definition here, and nothing to progress on the >>>>> standards ladder. This is, instead, >>>>> primarily defining process. Why isn't this being progressed as a BCP? >>>> The document does two things: >>>> >>>> 1)It updates some registries for sub-TLVs defined at >>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/isis-tlv- >>> codepoints.xhtml >>>> As these changes are modifying the format (not the content) of registries >>> used by a number of standards track RFCs it needs to be a standards track >>> document. >>> I don't believe that follows. A BCP could update these documents as well. >> The registries define the codepoints which are sent on the wire by IS-IS >> implementations. This is absolutely essential for interoperability. I fail >> to follow your reasoning that a change to such a registry falls into the BCP >> bucket. >> >> That said, I don't really care about the category - my goal in writing this >> draft is to satisfy the process requirements to get what amount to editorial >> changes to the registry done. In this matter I am happy to follow the >> recommendations from IANA/IESG, Gen-ART, etc. So let's not argue - rather >> please build consensus with your peers in IANA/IESG as well as the ADs and I >> will happily agree so long as it accomplishes the original goal. > Yes - the IESG can steer this at this point.
With regards to the document-as-ps issue, I think we can observe that new or changed IANA considerations have been done under various document classifications. I personally can not get worked over whether this is a BCP or a PS, albeit, as Pete notes, "Slightly weird to have this be Standards Track.”. I think having the texts clarified as Adrian suggested in his Discuss is probably the most worthwhile thing we can do here. jari
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
