Subject: Re: need to update opt-in to info

From: Sam Weiler <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 18:42:07 -0400 (EDT)

On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Randy Bush wrote:

> 1.2 add a normative reference to rfc2535bis, the records and
>     protocol documents.

One of the cited messages says:

>  o the ADs do have expressed concerns to the chairs about when it
>    gets published; after DS+2535bis would be best.  this doesn't
>    prevent folk from finishing the document now and it can queue
>    (in the wg or at the AD) on hold until DS+2535bis finishes.

Those concerns weren't shared with the list, and without them, I don't
see the need for a normative reference to the bis docs.  Normative on
DS, sure, but I don't see the need to wait for the whole rewrite to
complete.

-- Sam

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: Matt Larson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 14:37:41 -0400

On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Randy Bush wrote:
> http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2003/msg01007.html
> http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2003/msg01129.html
> 
> to execute the plan outlined in the message above, the chairs in
> coordination with the area director have agreed on the following
> actions:

Randy,

The plan outlined would move Opt-In to informational.  However, upon
re-reading the responses to both messages listed above, several people
suggesting moving Opt-In to experimental.  No one suggested
informational.

This decision to move to informational appears to have been reached
outside the WG.  The WG's opinion was not solicited nor was consensus
determined.

Could you please explain the process that led to this plan to move
Opt-In to informational?  Why can we not let the WG weigh in on this
topic?

I personally support Opt-In going to experimental.

Matt