The Last Call of what became RFC9092 2021-02-20 flagged the downrefs.
The Shepherd Review thereof says
=====================================
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see
RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support
the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.
- Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 5485
- Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 8805
These normative references to informative documents have been discussed with
the Authors.
I believe they will be difficult to resolve, and may mean the document sits in
"proposed standard"
pending completion of standards-track completion for these information
references, or suitable
alternatives.
===================================================
IntDir reckoned that the document should not be Standards Track
Ben suggested making 8805 Standards Track
The Protocol Action was 2021-05-26
HTH
Tom Petch
________________________________________
From: OPSAWG <[email protected]> on behalf of Rob Wilton (rwilton)
<[email protected]>
Sent: 30 November 2023 14:35
To: Joe Clarke (jclarke); Michael Richardson; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-9092-update
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) <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2023 2:31 PM
To: Michael Richardson <[email protected]>; [email protected];
Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
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"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>,
Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =- *I*LIKE*TRAINS*
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
