Hi Juergen, Sorry for the slow response, I missed this message.
Circling back to this discussion made me go revisit RFC2026. Based on all the factors/discussions I agree that standards track isn't quite right for this document, but I also think informational isn't quite right either. I do think BCP would as described in RFC2026 fits. This said, I think it would be good to hear from at least Kent (as Chair) and Benoit (as AD) if they agree/disagree with publishing as a BCP. Kent, Benoit? Thanks, Lou On 11/17/2017 1:54 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > Lou, > > right now, the document says standards track, Martin's proposal was to > move to informational. So how do I parse "I think you are correct. We > should leave as is."? > > /js > > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 07:36:58AM +0800, Lou Berger wrote: >> Martin, >> I think you are correct. We should leave as is. >> >> I'm sure Kent/the document Shepherd makes sure whatever we do is right >> before publication in any case. >> >> Lou (as contributor) >> >> On 11/15/2017 8:58 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Currently, draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams has intended status >>> Standards Track. I think I heard during the meeting today that it >>> ought to be Informational. I think this makes sense. It would then >>> imply that other standards track documents will have the tree diagram >>> document as an informative reference. >>> >>> Should we make this change? >>> >>> >>> /martin >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> netmod mailing list >>> netmod@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> netmod mailing list >> netmod@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
