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

Thomas Narten wrote:

> The following options were mentioned as ways forward:
> 
> 	- Moving to reclassify 2153 as Standards Track.

I didn't realize reclassification is an option. Does
that involve re-publishing the RFC with a different
number, the whole RFC approval process?

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

Hmm.... perhaps you can do it but I wonder if its too
much of a stretch. The draft says that it uses the
2153 OUI values. Yes, they are mostly IEEE numbers
but not in the case of CF0000 values. I'm not sure
how you would avoid having 2153 define at least partially
the semantics and allocation policy for one of the
fields in the draft.

> 	- Moving this draft to Informational track.

I'm not sure why 2153 was put out as Informational.
But if the reclassification is a too lengthy process
and making the reference informative too hard,
moving this draft to informational track
may be the only option left.

--Jari