Subject: [lmap] What is proper track for draft-ietf-lmap-framework-

From: Greg Mirsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 15:39:02 -0800

Dear All,
the current version of the framework is on Standard track. I'm not sure if
this is the intention of the WG as the document doesn't have reference to
RFC 2119, nor uses distinctive normative language. I think that
Informational track for a framework and/or architecture document is common
IETF practice. Perhaps it can be changed in the next revision.

Regards,
Greg

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 09:48:50 +0000

I think it was supposed to be Info. Thanks for spotting!

From: lmap [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Greg Mirsky
Sent: 03 December 2013 23:39
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [lmap] What is proper track for draft-ietf-lmap-framework-

Dear All,
the current version of the framework is on Standard track. I'm not sure if this is the intention of the WG as the document doesn't have reference to RFC 2119, nor uses distinctive normative language. I think that Informational track for a framework and/or architecture document is common IETF practice. Perhaps it can be changed in the next revision.
Regards,
Greg