On 9/28/17, 10:37 AM, "ietf on behalf of Denis Ovsienko" <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx on behalf of denis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >---- 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. >> I could see BCP, as it tells the IETF how we do our work. >> >> >>Informational documents aren't consensus documents. Which is why that status is not appropriate for this document. >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. What makes you say that? I think there is consensus, but I only base that on hearing from people who have expressed an opinion. Lee > >-- > > Denis Ovsienko > > >