IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-07

"Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com> Tue, 03 July 2012 12:51 UTC

Return-Path: <lars@netapp.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 0F10B21F881F; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 05:51:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.409
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.409 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.190, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 CCpKElSr6u8l; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 05:51:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx2.netapp.com (mx2.netapp.com [216.240.18.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B2EB21F8811; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 05:51:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.77,515,1336374000"; d="p7s'?scan'208"; a="659642780"
Received: from smtp2.corp.netapp.com ([10.57.159.114]) by mx2-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 03 Jul 2012 05:51:23 -0700
Received: from vmwexceht05-prd.hq.netapp.com (vmwexceht05-prd.hq.netapp.com [10.106.77.35]) by smtp2.corp.netapp.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/NTAP-1.6) with ESMTP id q63CpMrm028284; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 05:51:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SACEXCMBX01-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([169.254.2.193]) by vmwexceht05-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.106.77.35]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 05:51:22 -0700
From: "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com>
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-07
Thread-Topic: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-07
Thread-Index: AQHNWRbbG9Hh1O9Yi0GAB8RHIR7tG5cX+DaA
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 12:51:21 +0000
Message-ID: <2D34DBB5-543F-47A3-A649-BDDFF76A6438@netapp.com>
References: <4FF2E47C.80104@isode.com>
In-Reply-To: <4FF2E47C.80104@isode.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.106.53.51]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_5AEA599C-34A1-4DBC-A7FB-3D6C36EEBC81"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "<draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements.all@tools.ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements.all@tools.ietf.org>, "<gen-art@ietf.org>" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "<ietf@ietf.org>" <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: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 12:51:17 -0000

On Jul 3, 2012, at 14:24, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> I found it is to be odd to have a requirements document as a BCP, but I am sure
> you can sort the right status out with IESG.

+1

I fail to see why Informational wouldn't be the better status.

Lars

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email