> there is little issue with referring to standards from elsewhere > (see sec 7) even if the standard is published as an info rfc I believe this has been the reasoning behind acceptance of MD5 and HMAC in the past. > but just because somone says that a info RFC has a particular type of > content does not mean that it gets any special treatment It has traditionally been left to IESG (not just "someone") to decide whether a particular document (whether an Informational RFC or not) qualifies as an external standard according to section 7 of RFC 2026. The only problem with this is that the IESG discussion on a particular external standard can get repeated each time IESG is asked to review a candidate for the IETF standards track which references such an external standard. Keith
- Standard Track dependencies on Informational RFCs Kurt D. Zeilenga
- Re: Standard Track dependencies on Informational RF... RJ Atkinson
- Re: Standard Track dependencies on Informationa... Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Standard Track dependencies on Informational RF... Scott Bradner
- Re: Standard Track dependencies on Informationa... Kurt D. Zeilenga
- RE: Standard Track dependencies on Informationa... Keith Moore
- RE: Standard Track dependencies on Informational RF... Christian Huitema
- RE: Standard Track dependencies on Informational RF... Scott Bradner
- RE: Standard Track dependencies on Informationa... Harald Alvestrand
- RE: Standard Track dependencies on Informationa... Graham Klyne
- Re: Standard Track dependencies on Informationa... Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Standard Track dependencies on Informat... RJ Atkinson
- Re: Standard Track dependencies on Informational RF... John Stracke
- Re: Standard Track dependencies on Informational RF... Scott Bradner
- Re: Standard Track dependencies on Informationa... Kurt D. Zeilenga
- Re: Standard Track dependencies on Informat... Harald Alvestrand
