>>>>> "John" == John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> writes:
John> I also do not believe that it is appropriate to view
John> Informational publication as some sort of consolation prize.
John> If the community, and the IESG, conclude that the document
John> and its technology should be standardized, then
John> Informational publication should not be automatic: the
John> document should be reviewed for sponsorship appropriateness
John> according the IESG's recently-published procedures or
John> actually handed off to the RFC Editor as an independent
John> submission.
I agree with John here. I've basically concluded that I'm not
interested in sponsoring this document as an informational or
experimental document. I feel that it would come across way too much
as a consolation prise and I'm not sure that it would be justified.
If the IETF decides it is appropriate I'm happy to continue my
sponsorship on the standards track.
Note that the decision of whether I sponsor a document is one I get to
make; it is not subject to community consensus.
I would not object to an independent submission and while I think I
would advise other ADs against sponsoring info/experimental, I would
not hold a discuss if they chose to do so.
--Sam
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf