> First, please note that it is perfectly acceptable for a Proposed > Standard to have a normative reference to an informational / > experimental document, it is called a "down ref"
That would imply that every standards track routing protocol that wants to implement v4-via-v6 needs to negotiate a downref. I'm afraid it might discourage people from implementing v4-via-v6, and I also don't think that's a good usage of the ADs' limited time. > It needs to be explicitly listed in the IETF Last Call and the IESG has > to approve the downref (this is really routine) Perhaps my experience is unusual, but that's not what I've seen: the whole reason we started the Babel WG was because Alia refused a downref. She explicitly requested that we make Babel into a Standards Track protocol if we wanted to use it in Homenet. > As written in my AD review, I am unsure that the section about intermediate > routers > sending ICMP errors belongs to this I-D, a simple reference to RFC 7404 would > suffice. If this section is kept, then the title & abstract should be updated > accordingly as the I-D would be broader than simply next hop routing. I agree, the abstract is badly written. Can you please confirm whether I'm allowed to rewrite the abstract without restarting WGLC? Thanks, -- Juliusz _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
