Re: Last Call: CR-LDP Extensions for ASON to Informational

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



  *> 
  *> >   *> 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.
  *> 


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]