Hi, SM,
On 1/1/21 15:49, S Moonesamy wrote:
Hi Warren,
At 08:13 AM 01-01-2021, Warren Kumari wrote:
Just the fact that there was this much process needed to move the
document from the original status of "Informational" to "BCP".
The document was originally IETF LCed as Informational on 2020-08-26,
and went through IESG Eval on 2020-10-22.
During IESG Evaluation a number of ADs said that the document seemed
much more like BCP material - it contains best current practices.
The previous Last Call [1] was for the draft to be published as a
Proposed Standard.
There was an *error* in how the metadata for the document was set. The
track of the document had always been "Informational".
The "joke" was that there are process elves which feed on process, and
are excited for all of the paper-shuffling, etc required for this
change - sorry that it wasn't clearer...
There were three Area Directors who filed "process objections".
I believe that that was indeed the reason for which we've changed the
track to BCP.
There
were some good points raised as comments by Éric. I could not find any
response to those comments on the mailing list.
I thought we had responded to all, but since we authors are mere
mortals, it could also be the case that we missed some. I will review
all received comments (and, in particular, any by Eric) and respond if
necessary.
That said, the document is being IETF LC'ed (rather than published by
the RFC-Ed), so we're just in time to address anything that we may have
missed before.
Thanks!
Regards,
--
Fernando Gont
e-mail: fernando@xxxxxxxxxxx || fgont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
