Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'This document defines a set of PRovisioning Classes (PRCs) and textual conventions that are common to all clients that provision policy using Common Open Policy Service (COPS) protocol for Provisioning.

Structure of Policy Provisioning Information (SPPI) describes a structure for specifying policy information that can then be transmitted to a network device for the purpose of configuring policy at that device. The model underlying this structure is one of well-defined (PRCs) and instances of these classes (PRIs) residing in a virtual information store called the Policy Information Base (PIB).

One way to provision policy is by means of the (COPS) protocol with the extensions for provisioning. This protocol supports multiple clients, each of which may provision policy for a specific policy domain such as QoS, virtual private networks, or security.

As described in COPS usage for Policy Provisioning (COPS-PR), each client supports a non-overlapping and independent set of PIB modules. However, some PRovisioning Classes are common to all subject-categories (client-types) and need to be present in each.')

The authors wanted to change the SYNTAX of the ...FlowId in the filter. The change is to be able to specify that the label acan be ignored as well (e.g. it is kind of a FlowIdOrAny that is needed).
That seems a technical change that needs WG agreement.
But even worse, a similar change seems needed in the DIFFSERV MIB.
Further we found that a flowLabel/flowId is also used in two more I-Ds and in RFC2213. Best would be to allign them all to use a comment set of TCs.
A proposal has been posted to the diffserv and rap wg mailing lists by me (Bert).

State Changes to RFC Ed Queue                                      from Approved - Info sent                              by bwijnen

State Changes to Approved - Info sent                              from Approved                                          by scoya

State Changes to Approved                                          from New Version Needed (WG/Author)                    by scoya

State Changes to New Version Needed (WG/Author)                    from Reading List                                      by Bert Wijnen

IESG has agreed in Telechat Apr18 that there is not enough IESG consensus to accept WG request for stds track. Instead publish as Informational. IESG also agreed to ask fast track RFC-number assignment once approved. PIB-doctor issues to be fixed.