Hi Joe, They should be flagged at last-call, and normally I think that the tooling should spot these and flag these automatically.
If you can remind me after the AD review and perhaps put them in the shepherd writeup (whoever the shepherd is) that would help me check that they are listed correctly for this bis document. I have to confess that I'm not completely bought in to the necessity/merit of calling out these down refs at last call in that I'm convinced that anyone really cares ... but thanks for checking. Thanks, Rob From: Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jcla...@cisco.com> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2023 2:31 PM To: Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>; mohamed.boucad...@orange.com; Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwil...@cisco.com> Cc: opsawg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-9092-update Rob, can you comment on this with respect to 9092 and the intent for this bis? Thanks. Joe On 11/30/23, 09:24, "Michael Richardson" <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca<mailto:mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>> wrote: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com<mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> wrote: > I guess Rob has to call this out in the last call; please see RFC8067: > For Standards Track or BCP documents requiring normative > reference to documents of lower maturity, the normal IETF Last Call > procedure will be issued, with the need for the downward reference > explicitly documented in the Last Call itself. Any community comments > on the appropriateness of downward references will be considered by the > IESG as part of its deliberations. Yes, but it seems that this didn't happen when RFC9092 went through Last Call, and some of those references are occuring again. -- Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca<mailto:mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>>, Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- *I*LIKE*TRAINS*
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
