On Sep 13, 2013, at 2:32 PM, Olaf Kolkman <o...@nlnetlabs.nl> wrote:
> > On 13 sep. 2013, at 19:17, S Moonesamy <sm+i...@elandsys.com> 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. I do not think we should move away from the ted used in RFC 2026 Scott
