On 1/15/26 1:38 PM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > Are we comfortable having this document as Informational? (Knowing RFC 7451 > is Informational.) Emulating the IETF XML Registry (RFC 3688), could it not > be at least a BCP if not Standards Track. Key words “MUST”, “SHOULD”, etc > help with clearer guidance, IMO. > > */[SAH] I’m comfortable with it as-is, but a change is certainly possible if > there’s some specific reason that the WG thinks it needs to change./*
There is. IETF process is to be defined in BCPs, not Informationals. The 7451 was published under the wrong category. -andy, as an individual _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
