ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: PS Characterization Clarified

2013-09-13 13:36:04

On Sep 13, 2013, at 2:32 PM, Olaf Kolkman <olaf(_at_)NLnetLabs(_dot_)nl> wrote:


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.

I do not think we should move away from the ted used in RFC 2026

Scott