Greetings all, The redaction document has completed an IETF-wide Last Call on the grounds that it is seeking Informational status, and the authfailure-report document is now in IETF Last Call looking for Proposed Standard status. And we're working on the applicability statement, which will by its nature seek Proposed Standard as well.
IETF rules say we need to ensure that a normative reference in a proposed standard document can't have a normative reference to a document of lower status. I failed to notice this when doing my shepherd write-up for authfailure-report and it's come up during Last Call. That means authfailure-report has two downward references, one to SPF (RFC4408, which is experimental), and one to the redaction document which is seeking Informational. The WG needs to decide how to resolve this. Barry and I think there are three options: 1) Upgrade the redaction document to Proposed Standard, and include in it a note that it is a proposal at this point and not a mature protocol, leaving the applicability statement and the authfailure-report documents unchanged; 2) Leave the redaction document as Informational, but reduce it to being an informative reference in the other documents (with softening of surrounding text to match); 3) Stick with the current arrangement and tell the IESG explicitly that we think it's appropriate the way it is. With respect to the SPF downward reference, we believe this is workable. We just need to request a second Last Call on it that points out the normative downward reference. If we change the redaction document's status, we'll need a second Last Call on that one as well. The authfailure-report and redaction drafts are up for IESG evaluation on January 5th, so ideally we'll have arrived at our preferred path forward by then. Comments, please. -MSK
_______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
