---- On Thu, 28 Sep 2017 15:27:15 +0100 Ted Lemon wrote ----
>On Sep 28, 2017, at 9:48 AM, Andrew G. Malis <agmalis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:While I sympathize with the intent of this draft, I don’t understand why it’s being proposed as a standards track document. It doesn’t define any new protocols, nor does it contain any BCP 14 language. Rather, it’s a statement of policy for the IETF. I would suggest that it be published as an Informational RFC rather than standards track.
>
>
>
>Informational documents aren't consensus documents.
>From my point of view those two statements actually align with each other because this document at this time does not represent consensus of this IETF.
--
Denis Ovsienko