Ted: > The document currently says: > > Downward normative references to Informational documents continue to > be allowed using the procedure specified in RFC 3967 [2]. > > Downward normative references to Historic documents, Experimental > documents, and Internet-Draft documents continue to be prohibited. > > I believe these two statements are in conflict and the conflict must be > resolved. My reading of 3967 is that if the community has approved the use > of an Experimental document or internet-draft as a downref in a specific last > call, that downref is permitted and may even become institutionalized (see > the text on an AD waiving further last calls). One of the reasons given in > RFC 3967 is: > > o A migration or co-existence document may need to define a standards track > mechanism for migration from, and/or co-existence with, an historic protocol, > a proprietary protocol, or possibly a non-standards track protocol. > > > Unless a downref is permitted here, in other words, no coexistence or > migration mechanism can ever advance to Internet Standard. This seems to me > contrary to the aim of the document. I recommend that the Last Call for > advancement re-iterate any downrefs as a specific part of the call and that > these calls be lengthened to 4 weeks. This seems to me to follow the current > BCPs best, but other resolutions are, of course, possible.
Good catch. I think we should revise this to allow normative references to Informational, Experimental, and Historic RFCs using the procedures in RFC 3967. > > I strongly object to this text in Section 5: > > 2) At any time after two years from the approval of this document as > a BCP, the IESG may choose to reclassify any Draft Standard > document as Proposed Standard. > > Section 1 already provides a method for any interested party to request that > a document advance from Draft to Internet Standard. Creating another, less > stringent method to be employed only after 2 years is, at best, odd. At > worst, it seems like a signal that the IESG desires to do a mass update in > the future, but does not wish to deal with the political fall-out of saying > so at the same time as the publication of the document. I draw this > inference from the fact that the current section 2 does not require any > IETF-wide Last Call. If this is meant to say that after 2 years, any IESG > member may put forward a Last Call for any document to be advanced, then I > believe that the IESG member is simply taking the role of community member > set forward in Section 1, and no further section is needed. IESG review, > Last Call, and approval would still go forward according section 1. > > In case this is not clear, I do not think a mass update is valuable or > desirable. Many of the critical RFCs are pre-Track and no one much seems to > mind. At most, I think saying that Internet Standards are permitted to > reference Draft Standards is needed. (This can be inferred now from the fact > that Proposed Standards may be referenced, but it wouldn't hurt to update > that in section 4). > > I also strongly believe that this proposal will not have the intended effect > without concerted efforts by the IESG and WG Chairs to adhere to the new > "Proposed Standard" vision. As a new WG Chair, I plan to push that vision > for my own group, and I hope that the IESG will support that effort as this > document intends. I am lost here. Based on a previous version of the Internet-Draft, the question was raised by Brian Carpenter about documents that were stuck in a state Draft Standard after that label is abandoned. There was discussion on the list, and some people felt that it was neither confusing nor harmful, while others thought that it would lead to confusion. This proposal is intended to let the IESG decide, If it is not considered a problem, they can do nothing. If it is considered a problem, they can move the Draft Standard DOWN to Proposed Standard. Your use of "be advanced" makes me wonder if you got a different interpretation. Russ
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
