Re: PS Characterization Clarified

[Olaf Kolkman <[e-mail]>]

On 13 sep. 2013, at 19:17, S Moonesamy <[e-mail]> 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.


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

 
Yes. (see PS)


Thanks, and best,

--Olaf



PS. I think this is xml2rfc playing up. The xml contains this:

<back> 
 <references title='Normative References'>
    &rfc2026;
    &rfc6410;
  </references>
 <section title="Acknowledgements">
…..


But it seems to not want to translate . If anybody has suggestions, off-list please.