Subject: [Teas] Regarding the "Intended Status" for draft-ietf-teas-scheduled-resources

From: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2017 12:20:06 -0500

Authors, Hi!

After finishing the shepherd review for this document, I have come to the
conclusion that this document needs to be tagged with "Informational"
status (as opposed to the "Standards Track" status). This would be
consistent with the other "architecture" documents that we have worked on
in the TEAS WG.

I understand that using Standards Track makes it easy for the document to
be normatively referenced from other documents (if needed) that are going
onto Standards Track. Otherwise, we have to explain and catalogue the
requisite "downref" for IETF Last Call. That said, adding the downref is
not uncommon or burdensome.

If you agree with this change in the "Intended Status", please do update
the draft and publish a new version. If you do not agree, please do
debate/discuss this on the list.

Regards,
-Pavan (as document shepherd)

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2017 19:13:40 -0000

Hi Pavan,
 
The doc was posted as Standards track because it is generally easier to
"downgrade" than to "upgrade".
 
If you are willing to debate the value of informational support documents with
the IESG, then you are clearly less tired than me/
 
I'll post an update.
 
A
 
From: Vishnu Pavan Beeram
Sent: 02 December 2017 17:20:06 (UTC+00:00) Dublin, Edinburgh, Lisbon, London
To: [email-masked]            
Cc: [email-masked]; TEAS WG Chairs
Subject: Regarding the "Intended Status" for draft-ietf-teas-scheduled-resources
Authors, Hi!
After finishing the shepherd review for this document, I have come to the
conclusion that this document needs to be tagged with "Informational" status (as
opposed to the "Standards Track" status). This would be consistent with the
other "architecture" documents that we have worked on in the TEAS WG.

I understand that using Standards Track makes it easy for the document to be
normatively referenced from other documents (if needed) that are going onto
Standards Track. Otherwise, we have to explain and catalogue the requisite
"downref" for IETF Last Call. That said, adding the downref is not uncommon or
burdensome.
 
If you agree with this change in the "Intended Status", please do update the
draft and publish a new version. If you do not agree, please do debate/discuss
this on the list.
 
Regards,