Benjamin Kaduk <[email protected]> wrote: >> We are considering converting draft-ietf-acme-integrations from >> informational to standards track. If anyone objects, please reply on this >> list by 5 May 2023.
> Could we say a little more in this thread about why we want to make this
> change? The draft currently states explicitly "[t]his draft is
informational
> and makes no changes to the referenced specifications"; what new behaviors
> is it important to have at standards-track level of maturity?
There are no new protocols, but there are MUST requirements on existing
protocols, and we wound up with BCP14 words.
I.e. you MUST do X within exchange Y (even though protocol Y has it as MAY or
SHOULD)
Option a) drop the BCP14 words
b) use the BCP14-informational template
c) just make it standards track.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
