On 7/3/12 7:51 AM, Eggert, Lars wrote:
On Jul 3, 2012, at 14:24, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
I found it is to be odd to have a requirements document as a BCP, but I am sure
you can sort the right status out with IESG.
+1
I fail to see why Informational wouldn't be the better status.
Lars
Publicly reposting what I just put in my IESG ballot, just in case you
all want to disagree with me publicly. :-)
Perhaps I'm just being contrarian today, but I *do* think this document
should be BCP and not Informational. It is not a requirements document
in the sense that it is laying out requirements for future protocol
documents being developed by a WG; it is a consensus document listing
the requirements for the operation and administration of a type of
device. If that doesn't fall within the 2nd paragraph of RFC 2026
section 5, I don't know what does.
pr
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102