*>
*> > *> If code points are to be allocated from the space to be allocated by
*> > *> IETF Consensus, I strongly suggest that a *Standards Track*
document be
*> > *> written, with more detail on the messages, especially their
processing.
*> >
*> > Indeed, that is what "IETF consensus" means, isn't it?
*>
Kireeti,
Following Randy Bush's suggestion, I did a "quick reread of RFC 2434",
and I realized that my comment above was incorrect. I had interpreted
"standards track" as meaning "by IETF process", but RFC 2434 does
distinguish standards track from IETF-approved Informational. But then
I don't grok why it is particularly desirable to make the documentation
standards track, since in either case formal IETF action is involved.
Bob Braden
*> Is it? That's good. Currently, the document is Informational, and
*> is being processed as such. Can this be changed?
*>
*> Kireeti.
*>