RE: IESG Evaluation of draft-ietf-pppext-vendor-protocol-01.txt

Thomas:

My preference is option 2 (making the reference informative), but I can go
along with whatever James Carlson and the rest of you decide.

Thanks,
Rich Winslow

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Narten [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 12:29 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: IESG Evaluation of draft-ietf-pppext-vendor-protocol-01.txt


The IESG has reviewed the document and did not have any issue with the
content of the document per se.

However, the follow issue was raised:

 This document has a normative reference to RFC 2153, which is an
 informational document. Per 2026, Standards Track documents can't
 have normative references to informational documents.

The following options were mentioned as ways forward:

	- Moving to reclassify 2153 as Standards Track.

	- Making 2153 an informative reference. (doable, but would
          require some text shuffling)

	- Moving this draft to Informational track.

I think there was a slight preference within the IESG for the latter
step, but we can go with whatever the WG decides it wants to do.

Opinions?

Thomas