I don't care strongly about the standards track status. However, speaking as implementer of the protocol: If the document ends up as informational or experimental, I request that we make an exception and allow the protocol to use the already allocated IANA protocol constants. That will avoid interoperability problems. I know the numbers are allocated from the pool of numbers reserved for standards track documents. There is no indication that we are running out of numbers in that registry. Thus, given the recall, I think the IETF should be flexible and not re-assign the IANA allocated numbers at this point just because of procedural reasons. /Simon Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxx> writes: > Folks, we didn't get a lot of support expressed in the second last > call. If I were making a consensus call today I'd say we do not have > consensus to publish draft-housley-tls-authz-extns as a proposed > standard given the IPR claims against it. > > However Russ pointed out to me that it may be that people thought this > was a typical last call where silence meant agreement. I think even > under that interpretation things look grim: silence means agreement > with the prevailing expressed opinion. > > > But to make absolutely sure I propose to conduct a last call to > confirm that we don't have consensus to publish as a proposed > standard. Does this seem like the right approach to folks? I plan to > take some next step within the next couple of days based on input. > > I'm sorry this issue is taking up so much of the community's time. > > Sam Hartman > Security Area Director > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf