Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-ecrit-mapping-arch-03.txt

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 19:02:38 -0500

Brian:

You provided a very strong review.  The response seems to be to go 
forward as Informational instead of Proposed Standard (you advocated 
Experimental).  Does this seem like an acceptable direction to 
you?  If not, who not?

Russ

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 14:26:44 +1300

On 2008-02-21 13:02, Russ Housley wrote:
> Experimental).  Does this seem like an acceptable direction to you?  If
> not, who not?

Well, that implies that at least some people agree with my concerns.
It would be well within the IESG's rights to tell me I'm worried
about nothing. But assuming people do share my concerns, I think
publishing this off the standards track is entirely reasonable -
it's thoughtful work, and with experience could be tightened up
into normative material.

Looking at non-ION http://www.ietf.org/u/ietfchair/info-exp.html
makes me wonder why Guideline 3 applies instead of Guideline 4
(which would make it Experimental) but that is certainly not my
decision.

      Brian

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 12:15:59 -0500

There seems to be some confusion.  The charter says that this 
document will be Informational, and it has always been in the Tracker 
as Informational.

Russ

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 09:47:11 +1300

Fair cop, in terms of our process, although the document
is written in a style that calls for implementation.

   Brian

On 2008-02-22 06:15, Russ Housley wrote:
> There seems to be some confusion.  The charter says that this document
> will be Informational, and it has always been in the Tracker as
> Informational.
> 
> Russ
>