Hi Sara, On Thu, May 11, 2017, at 01:04 PM, Sara Dickinson wrote: > > > On 9 May 2017, at 23:43, Alexey Melnikov <[email protected]> wrote: > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > DISCUSS: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > (I just updated both my DISCUSS and my comment section.) > > > > I would like to ballot YES on this document, but I would like to discuss > > the following: > > > > Sorry for being DownRef police, but RFC 7918 is clearly Normative > > (because there is a SHOULD level requirement), but it is listed as > > Informative reference. > > I think that is a hangover from when it was referenced as a I-D > > > It would be a DownRef once it is made Normative, > > unless the procedure from RFC 8067 is used. Is RFC 7918 a suitable > > DownRef? Is it widely implemented? > > I just checked the early versions of the document and they actually > included a note at the end of section 12 which has since been removed: > > “ [NOTE: The references to (works in progress) should be upgraded to > MUST's if those references become RFC's prior to publication of this > document.] > > At the time both RFC7918 and RFC7924 were still I-Ds. With that in mind:
Ok. This makes some sense. > - Since RFC7918 is only Informational would it make more sense to use MAY > and leave it as an informative reference. No. Firstly, a MAY level requirement is still Normative, as it is required to implement. Secondly, whether a reference is normative or not has nothing to do with whether the document being referenced is Informational or any other kind. > - But change the recommendation regarding RFC7924 to be a MUST and make > that Normative (it is currently only informative). I missed that. Please also make it Normative. (I have no opinion on whether it should stay as SHOULD or become a MUST.) Thank you, Alexey _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
