On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, The IESG wrote: > The IESG has received a request from the Geographic Location/Privacy WG to > consider the following document: > > - 'Location Types Registry ' > <draft-ietf-geopriv-location-types-registry-03.txt> as a Proposed Standard > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > final comments on this action. Please send any comments to the > iesg@xxxxxxxx or ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2006-01-30. > > The file can be obtained via > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-geopriv-location-types-registry-03.txt What I would like to know is how a document that creates a registry can be considered for Proposed Standard, as opposed to BCP. A Proposed Standard is supposed to be something that can be advanced on the standards track. How on Earth does one have multiple interoperable genetically unrelated implementations of a registry? //cmh P.S. Yes I know we do this all the time but that does not mean that it makes sense! _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf