On Jun 9, 2011, at 8:50 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
- the criteria for standards track actions (which this is, despite the
document being labeled as Informational) requires both rough consensus and
technical soundness.
Informational status was at the behest of the iesg, we have been advised
that an informational document may confer historical status on a standards
track document.
I don't have a problem with the idea that an Informational document can
describe the consequences of moving something to Historic. I have a serious
problem with the idea that a standards-track document can be moved off of the
standards track by less than an IETF Consensus process, or by ignoring the
criteria for standards-track actions. I haven't seen any evidence that IESG
is trying to do that - they are doing a Last Call after all. But I don't
think we want to set a precedent that removing something from the standards
track is easier or requires less scrutiny of the technical criteria than
putting something on the standards track.
The record will show that that the intended status of the document until it
reached the iegs was standards track. it has been understood from the outset
that advancement of the document was to obsolete 3056 and 3068. revision 4 at
the request of the iesg changed th e intented status to informational.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf