> From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> > > My problem here, which I hope was clear from > the note from which you quoted, is that a request/document in > the second category was proposed for Standards Track and then > that comments that would be entirely appropriate for a Last Call > on a Standards Track document were essentially rejected on the > grounds that they would require changes to already-registered > RRTYPEs. This seems to be the only truly controversial point, and it is very important. The IETF does not promote something to a standard just because someone (or even lots of people) are already doing it. It is, however, perfectly acceptable to document it, and even to document that some other group has anointed it as a standard within *their* practice. Dale