>> I have no problem with the reference to Experimental RFC 5739, but I do >> have a problem with the downref not having been noted in the last call >> announcement, as required by RFC 3967 (BCP 97). And I think the MUST in >> the last paragraph of Section 2.5 requires 5739 to be normative. I hate >> to say this, but I think this requires a second last call on this >> document, which will really serve no one. We really do need to do an >> update to BCP 97 to fix this, because it comes up all the time. > > If the IESG wants to fix BCP 97, that's grand. Do note in the "very > informative and useful shepherd writeup", it says: > > If this becomes too much of an issue for the > purists, the reference can be moved to the Informative References section, > but it is more > appropriate as a normative reference. > > I really meant that. Instead of wasting everyone's time with another > IETF LC, please strongly consider changing the DISCUSS to "yes, you > need to move that reference to the Informational References" section.
The problem is that Section 2.5 says that you MUST do what's in 5739, so I think 5739 has to be normative. And, while I do think a second last call is silly, it doesn't really waste must of anyone's time, and only delays the document by a week or two, depending upon when Kathleen is able to start the second last call. I think the best thing is just to start a second last call tout de suite, which notes the downref and asks for comments only on that point. And then we've done the right thing with respect to BCP 97. (And meanwhile, I'll scare up an author for an update to BCP 97, because I, too, am tired of this silliness.) Barry Barry _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
