Internet-Drafts "expire" but they never go away. The IETF makes them publicly accessible on an "archival" basis. RFC 8447 is an example of an RFC that lists them specifically as a suitable specification form, without limitation. My impression is that the WG consensus was for this draft to do the same.
I don't think this allowance serves a specific purpose beyond making it very easy to acquire registrations, which is something that several working group members voiced support for. It is not limited to experimental usage. I believe the underlying logic is that parameter registrations are harmless because unrecognized parameters can safely be ignored, and the codepoint space is not at risk of exhaustion. On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 6:25 PM Murray S. Kucherawy <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 3:12 PM Ben Schwartz <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Yes, that's covered in the description: >> >> The designated expert MUST ensure that the Format Reference is stable and >> publicly available, and that it specifies how to convert the >> SvcParamValue's presentation format to wire format. The Format Reference >> MAY be any individual's Internet-Draft, or a document from any other source >> with similar assurances of stability and availability. >> > > Yes, I saw that text, but that sentence doesn't make it clear to me why an > auto-expiring document is acceptable as a possibly-permanent format > reference, so I thought I'd double check. > > -MSK >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
