Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration-11: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I’m not certain about the intended status of this document. I understand that this was discussed in the group but this document does specify a protocol extension and as such Proposed Standard or Experimental would be the two usual choices. The shepherd write-up mentions that this extension only has a limited scope, however, not sure what that is supposed to mean and it also doesn’t seems a good reason for informational (but experimental maybe). There are informational RFCs that document protocols of existing deployments for informational purposed only, meaning that there is a good reason to have a description of an existing protocol in a stable reference while the process of publishing the RFC would not change any technical means of that protocol but only document what’s out there. Usually these kind of RFC have a title like “Campany’s X protocol for something”. However, this seems not to be the case here or at least it's not clear from the content of the document. _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
