Re: [I2nsf] Working Group document adoption

["Susan Hares" <[e-mail]>]

Dan:

 

I agree that informational is the right status for these documents.  I will submit a revision with that change and addressing other comments on the list. 

 

Sue 

 

From: I2nsf [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 10:17 AM
To: Susan Hares; 'DIEGO LOPEZ GARCIA'; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [I2nsf] Working Group document adoption

 

Well, the charter says:

 

Ø  This document will initially be produced for reference as a living list to track and record discussions: the working group may decide to not publish this document as an RFC.

 

So, the WG may decide to not publish or may decide to publish the documents (as they are two now). In the case we decide to publish, it seems to me that ‘Informational’ would be the right status. Let us set it ‘right’ then – it’s a different style of writing and a different approach in reviewing when we deal with Standards Track vs. Informational. If we do not publish it does not matter. 

 

Regards,

 

Dan

 

 

From: Susan Hares [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 5:09 PM
To: 'DIEGO LOPEZ GARCIA'; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
Subject: RE: [I2nsf] Working Group document adoption

 

I2NSF WG: 

 

As co-author, I support adoption of both drafts. 

 

On Dan’s point, my understanding from the charter is that both of these documents were going to be WG documents that would not be published as RFCs.  This way of handling these documents is just fine or going to informational document published by IESG is also fine.  Adrian and Linda indicate the purpose of these documents is to help speed along the creation of the framework, models, and other charter items. 

 

Sue