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