Re: [Ips] AD review of draft-ietf-ips-iscsi-nodearch-key-02

Lars,

Yes we wanted new keys to be publicly documented without requiring authors 
to go to a strict review (that might be hard to get in several years).
In retrospect we should have said "at least informational" although there 
is (at least in theory) an ordering between RFC "classes".

Julo

Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@netlab.nec.de> 
16/10/06 03:40

To
ips@ietf.org
cc

Subject
Re: [Ips] AD review of draft-ietf-ips-iscsi-nodearch-key-02

On Oct 16, 2006, at 10:28, Lars Eggert wrote:
>   Finally - why is this going for Informational and not PS? PS seems
>   appropriate.

To be precise, I saw David's note on this from the document writeup 
("This document is being published as Informational because RFC 3720 
indicates that this class of key specification should be published as 
informational.")

It's unfortunate that 3720 doesn't also allow publication at 
Standards Track; I wonder what the rationale for this was. 
Intuitively, this should be OK, because Standards Track publication 
has a higher bar.

If the WG decides to go for Informational because of 3720, I'm OK 
with it. It may make sense to add a short note to the introduction 
explaining this.

Lars
-- 
Lars Eggert                                     NEC Network Laboratories

_______________________________________________
Ips mailing list
Ips@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips

Re: [Ips] AD review of draft-ietf-ips-iscsi-nodearch-key-02

Attachment: smime.p7s