At 9:49 AM -0500 2/19/07, John C Klensin wrote: > >For the record, I would have no problems with Informational or Experimental publication of this collection -- it is the proposed decision to standardize that bothers me. When I first discussed publication of this with the IESG, I pointed out that the author had asked for Proposed Standard, but I was more likely to support Informational or Experimental. At the time, Sam asked that it remain under consideration for standards track (at least up until the ballot discussion). One point raised was how easy it would be to reference these as encodings if they were informational or experimental, but I believe Sam had other points as well. Given the ongoing discussion, I asked Russ to Defer this document; that will give Sam a chance to come back from vacation and enter the discussion, and all of us a chance to continue it. My current take-away from the discussion is that the broader community would prefer we start with Informational or Experimental and consider the need to deal with downrefs as signals that this has sufficient constituencies to need standardization. Another point made in private was that many of the reviewers of this document to date have been familiar enough with ASN.1 that those aspects of this encoding were not surprising or difficult; that may be why the model issues were not raised earlier. I'm happy that in the case the Last Call discussion has raised the point, and if Russ's defer does not give us enough time to terminate the discussion, I'll withdraw the document. If we can conclude on a community recommendation (e.g. for Informational or Experimental) before that, though, it would be nice for my successor, who will otherwise need to take these on. regards, Ted _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf