Subject: Re: [dispatch] Review of draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-service-number-12

From: Anton Tveretin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 11:58:12 +0500

My 2 cents. AFAIK originally it was common to promote a published RFC; the RFC would start as a PS, then - as independent implementations appear - get STD status.
So nothing is wrong with assigning RFC 4458 STD. Indeed, keeping it STD should be better to avoid implementation conflicts.

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 09:28:26 -0600

On 20 Dec 2016, at 0:58, Anton Tveretin wrote:

> My 2 cents. AFAIK originally it was common to promote a published RFC; 
> the RFC would start as a PS, then - as independent implementations 
> appear - get STD status.
> So nothing is wrong with assigning RFC 4458 STD. Indeed, keeping it 
> STD should be better to avoid implementation conflicts.

In this case we would be talking about Informational to PS. We certainly 
have the ability to do that, if we think the RFC in question is 
sufficiently mature. That's an open question for RFC 4458.

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 12:16:13 -0500

> sufficiently mature. That's an open question for RFC 4458.

AFAIK the distinction between "Informational" and "PS" is not a matter 
of maturity. An informational document can be very mature and still not 
deserve to be a PS. Isn't the distinction that one is describing the 
rules for normative behavior while the other is not? ISTM that 
reclassification needs to be justified on the basis that the original 
classification was in error.

	Thanks,
	Paul