Hi - I'm confused about this approval. As I read the draft and the approval comments, this document is an independent submission describing how to do C12.22 over IP. But the document is without context for "who does this" typical to an informational RFC. Is this a) A document describing how the document authors would do this if they were a standards organization? b) A description of how their company does this in their products? c) A description of how another standards body (which one????) does this? d) A back door attempt to form an international standard within the IETF without using the traditional IETF working group mechanisms? This feels like (d) and is written like (d) and I believe past discussions have suggested that (d) is inappropriate for the Informational series. If this isn't the case, then the front matter of the document should identify one of a, b or c as the source case. As the announcement didn't point to a final RFC, and the front matter as above on the -07 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-c1222-transport-over-ip/) is written not as a "here's how we do it" informational, but as a "here's how all of us will do it" specification. My recommendation: Either add an RFC comment along the lines of a, b or c, or publish this as an Experimental RFC pre-submission to the working group process with the appropriate front matter identifying the submitters in their entirety (e.g. is this an Itron/L&G submission as seems to be implied in the Introduction). I apologize for missing this in the Last Call back in July, but I'm kind of surprised this got past the IESG without some explanatory material being added to the front. Mike _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf