Re: Review of: Characterization of Proposed Standards

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@ericsson.com> Sat, 02 November 2013 14:45 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53AD921E8097 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Nov 2013 07:45:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.912, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wirxxiF3Fk-k for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Nov 2013 07:45:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sesbmg20.ericsson.net (sesbmg20.ericsson.net [193.180.251.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2088A11E80FA for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 2 Nov 2013 07:45:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb38-b7f2c8e000006d25-5e-5275100345d0
Received: from ESESSHC004.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by sesbmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id E8.4A.27941.30015725; Sat, 2 Nov 2013 15:45:23 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ESESSMB307.ericsson.se ([169.254.7.88]) by ESESSHC004.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.30]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Sat, 2 Nov 2013 15:45:23 +0100
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@ericsson.com>
To: "<dcrocker@bbiw.net>" <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Subject: Re: Review of: Characterization of Proposed Standards
Thread-Topic: Review of: Characterization of Proposed Standards
Thread-Index: AQHO18+PsIWzwrWAoUSjkGbCwMPsKpoR8+iA
Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2013 14:45:22 +0000
Message-ID: <40AFC5D09A1926489ECFED9D7633D98A200655@ESESSMB307.ericsson.se>
References: <5269209F.3060706@dcrocker.net> <B4B31C25-C472-41B3-AAF8-96670E0E243F@NLnetLabs.nl> <52729C1D.7010400@dcrocker.net> <CAC4RtVCewEKatJKJnBbCqgsuBjHCOHY49WoTx+y-K_zDt+Smxg@mail.gmail.com> <34A065A2-516B-4033-BCAF-E0811698E6A6@NLnetLabs.nl> <5274FE3B.9060501@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <5274FE3B.9060501@dcrocker.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.154]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F0187ACC-40CE-4F51-BA49-3A35934FAD17"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprMIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+JvjS6zQGmQwYP91haHFl9itfj96QOb xaH3fSwWzzbOZ7FY/3wTkwOrx6WdJ9k8Wlb1MnssWfKTyWNv7302jy+XP7MFsEZx2aSk5mSW pRbp2yVwZVz6uZ2xoNG44tLOR6wNjE8Nuhg5OSQETCRuPX/JCGGLSVy4t56ti5GLQ0jgCKPE o/d7GSGcRYwSOw5/YQapYhPQkti4fAFQFQeHiICuxKqjgSA1zALfGSUmbWljBakRFrCTODdr DpgtImAvsaNlKSOEbSTRsvUd2BwWARWJLYf/MIHYvALeEm8fn2GGWsYk8WjKcbAGTgEdib1/ L7KB2IxA530/tQasgVlAXOLWk/lMEGeLSDy8eJoNwhaVePn4HyuErSSx6PZnJojrpjBKtC69 xQqxTVDi5MwnLBMYRWchmTULWd0sJHUQRfIS29/OYYawDSSedr5ihbBNJV4f/cgIYVtLzPh1 kA3CVpSY0v2QfQEjxypGjuLU4qTcdCODTYzAiD245bfFDsbLf20OMUpzsCiJ83586xwkJJCe WJKanZpakFoUX1Sak1p8iJGJg1OqgVHWccUX0ReaTv76ec0pq3LaXt9w0RZbYORQYvPqYSCv wILgXyz2L1gcjXedXTpJODHtnd02dYd9n5iN15+WD9xzOehhwpmi+hUm0ycfXSPzY+ORA94r tvTzT117+HYDz3nDe+7nd8r8EJTcu+x6+v81Oq2ejol38jO3M5hMWfNAffOKf06+HN+UWIoz Eg21mIuKEwFL+g9+pgIAAA==
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 02 Nov 2013 08:11:09 -0700
Cc: "<draft-kolkman-proposed-standards-clarified.all@tools.ietf.org>" <draft-kolkman-proposed-standards-clarified.all@tools.ietf.org>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2013 14:45:33 -0000

> Perhaps:
> 
>   4.  Further Considerations
> 
>   Occasionally the IETF may choose to publish as Proposed Standard a
>   document that contains areas of known limitations or challenges.  In
>   such cases any known issues with the document will be clearly and
>   prominently communicated in the document, for example in the
>   abstract, the introduction, or a separate section or statement.

Seems reasonable to me.

jari