The correct link is: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/P_2tgzMQvWMAX5PmleDdlH3Redo/
> On Oct 10, 2025, at 1:12 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Michael, > >> On Oct 10, 2025, at 11:49 AM, Michael Richardson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> wrote: >>> ## COMMENTS (non-blocking) >> >>> ### Why informational ? >> >>> The shepherd write-up is rather silent on the intended status of >>> informational >>> as it seems to me that proposed standard would be a better fit. >> >> Informational Seems wrong. >> I see that the document declares that, and I think that's a copy'n'paste >> mistake. >> It should be std. At one point, we were told that only IETF-stream STD could >> create certain categories of registry, and that's why we couldn't go ISE. > > I am not sure that it is a cut/paste error. See this thread on the topic. > > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/opsawg/?q=draft-ietf-opsawg-pcaplinktype > > My reading of the thread was that if the only requirement for making a PS was > to create a registry, that there are examples of an Informational RFC > creating IANA registries. A better justification would need to be provided to > make it a PS and the Shepherd’s report will need to be updated to reflect the > change. > > Thanks. > > Mahesh Jethanandani > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Mahesh Jethanandani [email protected]
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
