> On 16 Mar 2022, at 3:52 am, Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > If the authors are prepared to make this change, I'd like to hear why "IETF Standards Track w/consensus" is (or should be) off the table, especially if other search engines are going to indicate support. That's reasonable, if support eventuates. If it doesn't, it would be pretty awkward -- I think we'd want at least some level of review or at least acknowledgement by other major implementers before declaring it Standards Track. AIUI a status change would necessitate another IETF LC, so that might be the best way to solicit that support. Make it a long one to give other implementations a meaningful way to respond -- say, four weeks. If the IESG doesn't hear from at least two or three other stakeholder implementations (in its estimation), it could still be published at Informational, and transitioned to Standards Track if/when that support eventuates. Make sense? Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
