Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-21.txt

Hi,

>> 1) The draft now aims at "Standards Track" instead of BCP.  This appears
>>   at least "interesting" for a process document. What is the motivation
>>   behind this?
> 
> We updated this on request from the IESG. I actually don't know what's the 
> reasoning behind.
> 
> @Gonzalo: Could you please clarify on this?

the tracker's field contained PS but the document said BCP. The chairs
(Richard) said that the plan had always been to go for PS and not for
BCP, and the IESG did not have any problem with that.

Cheers,

Gonzalo