Pekka - your point 2 leads us to a circular dependency: the documents in question won't be chartered for development in a WG until after draft-ietf-dnsop-ipv6-dns-configuration is reviewed by the IESG. But draft-ietf-dnsop-ipv6-dns-configuration can't include draft-jeong-dnsop-ipv6-dns-discovery-01.txt and draft-ohta-preconfigured-dns-01.txt as normative references if draft-ietf-dnsop-ipv6-dns-configuration is published as an RFC.
On the one hand, it's likely not necessary for draft-ietf-dnsop-ipv6-dns-configuration to be published as an RFC to fulfill its purpose as a source of information to the IESG. On the other hand, I think it's mandatory to publish draft-ietf-dnsop-ipv6-dns-configuration as an RFC at some point to help us avoid retracing our steps over this ground in the future.
At the risk of going way down a rat-hole, I suppose draft-jeong-dnsop-ipv6-dns-discovery-01.txt and draft-ohta-preconfigured-dns-01.txt could be published in their current states as Informational, for the sole purpose of providing an archive of the ideas in the two drafts to be referenced in draft-ietf-dnsop-ipv6-dns-configuration.
Can you point us at the relevant RFC that defines the requirements for normative references? I don't remember and couldn't find the relevant RFC with a quick search. Thanks...
- Ralph
At 08:33 AM 6/23/2004 +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004, Bob Hinden wrote: > >17. Normative References > > > >There are two work-in-progress documents: > > > > draft-jeong-dnsop-ipv6-dns-discovery-01.txt > > draft-ohta-preconfigured-dns-01.txt > > > >Can't we have these as normative references unless these are published > >as a stable document (presumably an RFC) before the publication of > >this document or at least synchronously? Or is that actually the > >plan? > > I think the normative issue only applies if this document is to become a > BCP or Standard. If it's just informational, these can be listed as work > in progress. Input from the chairs and/or ADs here would be useful.
There are two "normative issues":
1) a standards track document cannot refer normatively to an informational/experimental document, or document with a lower maturity than itself. [this is not an issue here]
2) no RFC will be published until all of its normative references (no matter the category) have been published. It can be approved, but will then wait at the RFC editor queue. Informative references are listed as work in progress. The justification here is that the normative reference might change substantially before approval, and the circumstances of the referral might be entirely different.
If reading draft-jeong-dnsop-ipv6-dns-discovery-01.txt and draft-ohta-preconfigured-dns-01.txt is critical for understanding this document (it might be!), they might in any case warrant being over at normative references. They can be moved to informative later as well (even as far as the RFC editor) if it seems they won't move forward.
-- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
. dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________ web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
. dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________ web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
