Re: [Roll] adding P2P standards track to charter

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

On 12/30/15 16:30, Michael Richardson wrote:
> As for *RPL P2P* --- it's a good question.  The decision to put P2P on
> experimental track predates the current chairs (and also the ADs), and
> I'd have to go do some research to establish why it went that way in the
> first place, and see if those concerns still exist.

I meant to add: I see nothing in BCP9 that would make the existence of
RFC6997 any easier for production of a P2P Proposed Standard.  I will
ask around to understand if I've missed something about moving
Experimental to standards track.

[the re-read of of BCP9 makes it even more clear that our Applicability
Statements *do* belong on standards track, and not informational. For
those wondering what happened to our documents, see:
	https://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_info.php?cid=C245 ]