On 29.12.2011 19:46, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > 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. > > 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;
My understanding is that redaction is sometimes necessary or useful, but even then the WG has no final solutions. We just propose an algorithm, and thus the document is informative. If aiming at PS implies devising a protocol for thoroughly redacting messages, I suggest we don't. > 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); +1, this is meaningful. > 3) Stick with the current arrangement and tell the IESG explicitly that we > think it’s appropriate the way it is. IMHO, by this argument, [RFC4408] could be moved to the normative references section of marf-as. > Comments, please. While I agree that placing references according to the status of referred documents is nice, I don't think it is so essential a facet as to seriously disrupt publication schedules for perfecting it. _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
