Re: [NSIS] Draft-ietf-nsis-ntlp: Late change of IANA consideration section

[Jari Arkko <[e-mail]>]

Thomas,

> I.e., one could argue that all IANA considerations should be BCPs (and
> they usually are when they are standalone), but we don't ask standards
> track documents to move the IANA considerations to a separate document
> just to make all our categories look clean... (and for good reason!)
>   

I agree, but in this case the issue is even more fundamental than the 
document structure. If FOO is experimental technology, does it make 
sense to require that extensions of FOO are standards?

Jari