On 10 Dec 2015, at 14:02, Scott Bradner <sob(_at_)sobco(_dot_)com> wrote:
2.In general I was wondering why this is an Informational document. It
defines procedures and has normative language.
That sounds like kind of an unfortunate bug. For some reason, it changed
from Standards Track to Informational between versions -00 and -01.
However, we want it standards-track with a normative downreference to
radsec. Can it be done at this moment or does it require a more complex
process?
Hmm. The shepherd write-up says informational is correct. If the WG
chairs want to, we can re-spin the IETF LC. But this has been so
long in the process and has slowly so I'd prefer to not do that
unless someone really cares, and it makes a difference.
For now, I've kept this on the Dec17 IESG telechat as informational
but if needed we can push it into the new year.
fwiw - 2026 requeres a new LC if there is to be a increase in the status
(info to studs track)
Yes, that is understood. I (document shepherd) actually consulted RFC2026 on
this because I was in doubt, and since there is mentioning of "Specifications
that have been prepared outside of the Internet
community” and part of this spec is OASIS’ domain, I found informational
defensible. As it turns out the change to informational was accidental. I’ll
discuss with the authors.
Klaas