Please indicate your preference for publishing the document as:
1. Proposed Standard, as queried in the two Last Call notices
Standards Track is an odd category for an architectural document. If
the argument is "it needs to be on standards track in order to have
more weight", I understand that the argument, but that doesn't make it
right. (As an exercise, look at the RFC index, and search for
documents with "architecture" in the title. Very few are on the
standards track.)
Traditionally, standalone architecture documents have been
informational. One reason is that it generally makes no sense for an
architectural document to advance up the standards track. In the light
of draft-dusseault-impl-reports-02.txt, exactly what features of the
architecture would one test in an implementation report? If the
answer is "such a test makes no sense", it seems rather odd to have
the document on the standards track in the first place.
Thomas
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf