Re: PS Characterization Clarified

[Olaf Kolkman <olaf@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 13 sep. 2013, at 19:17, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The intended status would have to be BCP instead of Informational.  

Correct….  fixed on trunk.

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.  

I have used exactly the same term as RFC2026. I have no idea if 'standards action' is defined somewhere.

The two references in Section 7 would have to be normative references.

 

Yes. (see PS)

Thanks, and best,

--Olaf

PS. I think this is xml2rfc playing up. The xml contains this:

<back> 

 <references title='Normative References'>

    &rfc2026;

    &rfc6410;

  </references>

 <section title="Acknowledgements">

…..

But it seems to not want to translate . If anybody has suggestions, off-list please.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail