> Please indicate your preference for publishing the document as: > 1. Proposed Standard, as queried in the two Last Call notices Standards Track is an odd category for an architectural document. If the argument is "it needs to be on standards track in order to have more weight", I understand that the argument, but that doesn't make it right. (As an exercise, look at the RFC index, and search for documents with "architecture" in the title. Very few are on the standards track.) Traditionally, standalone architecture documents have been informational. One reason is that it generally makes no sense for an architectural document to advance up the standards track. In the light of draft-dusseault-impl-reports-02.txt, exactly what features of the architecture would one test in an implementation report? If the answer is "such a test makes no sense", it seems rather odd to have the document on the standards track in the first place. Thomas _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf