Hi Olaf,
At 07:56 13-09-2013, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
Based on the discussion so far I've made a few modifications to the
draft. I am trying to consciously keep this document to the minimum
that is needed to achieve 'less is more' and my feeling is that
where we are now is close to the sweetspot of consensus.
The intended status would have to be BCP instead of
Informational. In Section 3.1:
"A specific action by the IESG is required to move a
specification onto the standards track at the "Proposed Standard"
level."
I suggest "standards" instead of "specific" action if you (and the
other authors) decide that BCP is appropriate. The last paragraph in
Section 3.1 is okay. I don't think that Section 4 is
necessary. Please note that I do not have a strong opinion about
this. I leave it to your discretion.
The two references in Section 7 would have to be normative references.
I have reason to believe that you mean it when you say "we document
what we do". draft-kolkman-proposed-standards-clarified-01 proposes
that the IETF does that and I think that it is a fine idea.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy