Re: PS Characterization Clarified

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Olaf,
At 07:56 13-09-2013, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
>Based on the discussion so far I've made a few modifications to the 
>draft.  I am trying to consciously keep this document to the minimum 
>that is needed to achieve 'less is more' and  my feeling is that 
>where we are now is close to the sweetspot of consensus.

The intended status would have to be BCP instead of 
Informational.  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.  The last paragraph in 
Section 3.1 is okay.  I don't think that Section 4 is 
necessary.  Please note that I do not have a strong opinion about 
this.  I leave it to your discretion.

The two references in Section 7 would have to be normative references.

I have reason to believe that you mean it when you say "we document 
what we do".  draft-kolkman-proposed-standards-clarified-01 proposes 
that the IETF does that and I think that it is a fine idea.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy