*> *> > *> If code points are to be allocated from the space to be allocated by *> > *> IETF Consensus, I strongly suggest that a *Standards Track* document be *> > *> written, with more detail on the messages, especially their processing. *> > *> > Indeed, that is what "IETF consensus" means, isn't it? *> Kireeti, Following Randy Bush's suggestion, I did a "quick reread of RFC 2434", and I realized that my comment above was incorrect. I had interpreted "standards track" as meaning "by IETF process", but RFC 2434 does distinguish standards track from IETF-approved Informational. But then I don't grok why it is particularly desirable to make the documentation standards track, since in either case formal IETF action is involved. Bob Braden *> Is it? That's good. Currently, the document is Informational, and *> is being processed as such. Can this be changed? *> *> Kireeti. *>