Hi Stewart, I'm struggling to see how draft-ietf-sidr-repos-struct could exist as a Standards Track document without a significant rewrite and then passing back through both WG and IETF last calls.
The document at this stage is structured as a _recommendation_ to RPKI participants on one particular RPKI naming scheme. While I think that having the files in the RPKI have particular extensions helps relying parties decode the structure, I'm not convinced that turning that into a standards action is a healthy option. At this stage I feel more comfortable leaving it as BCP. Cheers Terry On 16/07/11 5:53 AM, "Stewart Bryant" <stbry...@cisco.com> wrote: > SIDR WG, > > During IESG review the there was a preference for > draft-ietf-sidr-repos-struct to be Standards Track > rather than BCP. > > Making this change does not require a new IETF LC. > > I want to get sense of whether the WG would be OK > with this change of track. > > If anyone has a reason not to change to Standards > Track, please let me know by 29th July. > > Thanks > > Stewart > > > _______________________________________________ > sidr mailing list > sidr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
