Re: #247 and Registry policies

On 2012-03-06 20:43, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>
> On 06/03/2012, at 7:00 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>
>> My point being: when you say
>>
>>   "... with the notion that if there are commonly-used values that haven't gone through IETF Review, they can be written up in a quick I-D and registered as Reserved."
>>
>> Do you *really* mean that is sufficient to write an ID, and *not* get it published as RFC?
>
> No.

OK. But then I still don't understand the proposal:


> Standard / Reserved / Obsolete
>
> ... with the notion that if there are commonly-used values that haven't gone through IETF Review, they can be written up in a quick I-D and registered as Reserved.

If somebody writes that I-D and gets it published, why wouldn't the 
state then not be "Standard"?

Best regards, Julian