Re: [stir] Getting PASSPORT Published

[Mary Barnes <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ben,

Thanks for your question.  I am more suggesting the former than the
latter.  Although, I also don't think the proposed change adds any real
value or will have any impact on what service providers choose to do.

Regards,
Mary

On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 5:52 PM Ben Campbell <[e-mail]> wrote:

> <as individual>
>
> Hi Mary,
>
> Is your argument that the original text is good enough for an
> informational RFC, so there’s no need to improve it? Or that the proposed
> new text does not improve it?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Ben.
>
> > On Feb 21, 2019, at 5:12 PM, Mary Barnes <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> > I personally don't see it adds any value to make the proposed change
> given
> > that you're proposing to change the status of the draft to Informational
> > (which I'm fine with).  We've had this discussion many, many times with
> one
> > of those threads triggering this draft:
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-peterson-informational-normativity-01
> > We could start it again, if you don't agree with what that draft says -
> > that will give us a good topic for open mic discussions at the plenary
> next
> > month ;)
> >
> > I also thought IESG had published a statement on this, but I can only
> find
> > the one with regards to the references and not the terms:
> >
> https://www.ietf.org/blog/iesg-statement-normative-and-informative-references/
>
>