[regext] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration-11: (with DISCUSS)

[Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration-11: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I’m not certain about the intended status of this document. I understand that
this was discussed in the group but this document does specify a protocol
extension and as such Proposed Standard or Experimental would be the two usual
choices. The shepherd write-up mentions that this extension only has a limited
scope, however, not sure what that is supposed to mean and it also doesn’t
seems a good reason for informational (but experimental maybe). There are
informational RFCs that document protocols of existing deployments for
informational purposed only, meaning that there is a good reason to have a
description of an existing protocol in a stable reference while the process of
publishing the RFC would not change any technical means of that protocol but
only document what’s out there. Usually these kind of RFC have a title like
“Campany’s X protocol for something”. However, this seems not to be the case
here or at least it's not clear from the content of the document.