Subject: [Asdf] intended status of SDF document

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2021 12:21:42 -0500

In discussion with our incoming AD, the DT says "Intended RFC Status" => None.
The document says "Informational"

The chairs believe that the intended status is "Proposed Standard".
Please disagree!

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2021 17:41:06 -0000

I agree that it should be a proposed standard.

Kind Regards,
Wouter

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2021 18:51:01 +0100

On 2021-02-09, at 18:21, Michael Richardson <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Signed PGP part

Well, it was informational when it still was a T2TRG document.
Apparently, that was never updated in the metadata.

> The chairs believe that the intended status is "Proposed Standard".

Which is now what out charter says we should do (“develop SDF into a standards-track specification”…).

> Please disagree!

Can’t.

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2021 16:18:43 -0500

> Apparently, that was never updated in the metadata.

I've updated the DT, please change the metadata when you next submit, thank you!

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2021 11:50:23 +0100

On 2021-02-09, at 22:18, Michael Richardson <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> please change the metadata when you next submit, thank you!

Done in github: https://github.com/ietf-wg-asdf/SDF/commit/e1d52d7

Grüße, Carsten