To followup on my previous reply: On 5 Oct 2016, at 08:16, Patrik Fältström <p...@frobbit.se> wrote:
>> Based on your comments, it appears that this >> I-D should be an informational document, and I have no objections for making >> this I-D an informational document. This I-D is included in >> draft-ietf-regext-launchphase (standards track) as a normative reference, >> and is >> my understanding that is possible to include an informational RFC as a >> normative reference in an standards track document, @chairs please correct >> me if >> I am wrong. > > When I was an AD, that was not possible. And that is the whole point with > Standards Track. To implement it you do only rely on documents that have a > well known change process that is accepted and documented. Some organizations > (IETF and ISO etc) do have agreements how to make normative references > between each others documents. I do not think IETF and ICANN do. Patrick, Do you think IESG should discuss referencing ICANN documents and come to some kind of consensus? > My view, my personal view, is that the documents you reference normatively > are not stable enough to be normative references in an IETF Standards Track > Document (even a few hops away). The process for changing them in ICANN is > not even near as predictive as the IETF Standards Track Process. And that might be a good enough reason while a normative document to ICANN document might not be appropriate. _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
