On Sun May 22 2005 18:15, ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:
The ID-tracker says that the intended status -- which is nowhere mentioned
in the draft itself -- is Experimental.
It is entirely inappropriate to mention it in the draft.
The current version (dated March 25, 2005) of the "Guidelines to
Authors of Internet-Drafts", http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.html,
explicitly provides for indicating intended status:
Indicating what status the document is aimed for is OK, but should be done
with the words "Intended status: <status>".
It is helpful to reviewers to know what the intended status is, as
considerations apply to Standards Track documents that do not apply
to Experimental documents, and so on.