On 2017-10-24 04:38, Keith Moore wrote:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> The document reads like a BCP to me. Was it discussed in the group to
>> go for
>> BCP? If yes, why was it decided to go not for BCP? If no, I would strong
>> recommend for BCP.
>
> BCP was discussed in the WG, and there was a vocal minority who
> advocated it. My personal feeling was that this is a document that
> both specifies protocol (this appropriate for standards track,
> especially given the need for demonstrated interoperability to advance
> to full Standard) and policy (thus BCP), but the former consideration
> tipped the balance in favor of standards track. And it didn't seem to
> make sense to split the document into two pieces. I also (somewhat
> reluctantly) attempted to rewrite version -08 to be a BCP, after
> versions -00 through -07 were intended as standards track. But in
> Prague (in response to -08) there was strong support that the document
> be standards track, so -09 was intended as standards track again. There
> were no objections to that in WGLC.
correct, this has been discussed and standards-track represents the
consensus of the WG
Cheers Leif
_______________________________________________
Uta mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
