On Jun 9, 2011, at 8:50 AM, Keith Moore wrote: > >>> - the criteria for standards track actions (which this is, despite the >>> document being labeled as Informational) requires both rough consensus and >>> technical soundness. >> >> Informational status was at the behest of the iesg, we have been advised >> that an informational document may confer historical status on a standards >> track document. > > I don't have a problem with the idea that an Informational document can > describe the consequences of moving something to Historic. I have a serious > problem with the idea that a standards-track document can be moved off of the > standards track by less than an IETF Consensus process, or by ignoring the > criteria for standards-track actions. I haven't seen any evidence that IESG > is trying to do that - they are doing a Last Call after all. But I don't > think we want to set a precedent that removing something from the standards > track is easier or requires less scrutiny of the technical criteria than > putting something on the standards track.
The record will show that that the intended status of the document until it reached the iegs was standards track. it has been understood from the outset that advancement of the document was to obsolete 3056 and 3068. revision 4 at the request of the iesg changed th e intented status to informational. > Keith > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
