Re: PS Characterization Clarified

On 13 sep. 2013, at 19:17, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf(_at_)elandsys(_dot_)com> wrote:


> The intended status would have to be BCP instead of Informational.  
Correct….  fixed on trunk.


> In Section 3.1:
>  "A specific action by the IESG is required to move a
>   specification onto the standards track at the "Proposed Standard"
>   level."
>
> I suggest "standards" instead of "specific" action if you (and the other 
> authors) decide that BCP is appropriate.  
I have used exactly the same term as RFC2026. I have no idea if 'standards 
action' is defined somewhere.


> The two references in Section 7 would have to be normative references.
 
Yes. (see PS)


Thanks, and best,

--Olaf



PS. I think this is xml2rfc playing up. The xml contains this:

<back> 
 <references title='Normative References'>
    &rfc2026;
    &rfc6410;
  </references>
 <section title="Acknowledgements">
…..


But it seems to not want to translate . If anybody has suggestions, off-list 
please.

signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail