Hi Alvaro, The current text is better aligned with the informational status. If needed, the status can be changed to Standards Track (or BCP) during the WG progression of the document.
Thanks Regards … Zafar From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.i...@gmail.com> Date: Monday, August 19, 2024 at 1:13 PM To: Zafar Ali (zali) <z...@cisco.com> Cc: draft-bdmgct-spring-srv6-secur...@ietf.org <draft-bdmgct-spring-srv6-secur...@ietf.org>, spring-cha...@ietf.org <spring-cha...@ietf.org>, SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>, Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.i...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [spring] Re: WG Adoption Call for draft-bdmgct-spring-srv6-security (ends Aug/19) On August 19, 2024 at 1:03:58 PM, Zafar Ali wrote: Zafar: Hi! > I support the adoption call. > > However, I believe the document should be “informational.” Do you have a specific reason? The intended status should depend on the content and its relationship to other documents. It is too early to determine as this is still work in progress -- I'm sure this point will come up later as the document progresses through the WG. Thanks! Alvaro.
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list -- spring@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to spring-le...@ietf.org
