On 13 sep. 2013, at 19:17, S Moonesamy <sm+i...@elandsys.com> wrote:
> The intended status would have to be BCP instead of Informational.
Correct…. fixed on trunk.
> In Section 3.1:
> "A specific action by the IESG is required to move a
> specification onto the standards track at the "Proposed Standard"
> level."
>
> I suggest "standards" instead of "specific" action if you (and the other
> authors) decide that BCP is appropriate.
>
I have used exactly the same term as RFC2026. I have no idea if 'standards
action' is defined somewhere.
>
> The two references in Section 7 would have to be normative references.
Yes. (see PS)
Thanks, and best,
--Olaf
PS. I think this is xml2rfc playing up. The xml contains this:
<back>
<references title='Normative References'>
&rfc2026;
&rfc6410;
</references>
<section title="Acknowledgements">
…..
But it seems to not want to translate . If anybody has suggestions, off-list
please.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
