I am just now wading into this since Alexey has passed shepherding duties onto me for this group and this is not my area of expertise so please feel free to correct me.
It seems to me there is a fairly straightforward resolution to the reference issue. As pointed out below, the only reason that draft-ietf-regext-launchphase appears to have a normative reference to draft-ietf-regext-tmch-func-spec is to be able to reference the definition of trademark claims phase (although draft-ietf-regext-tmch-func-spec calls this the trademark claims period). But none of the other phases have definitional citations, presumably because the phase definitions are taken as given based on existing ICANN policy (in the same way that when a document talks about a time frame of “1 day” it does not need to provide any citation about how 1 day equals 24 hours because the definition of 1 day is taken as a given). And draft-ietf-regext-tmch-func-spec isn’t really the source of the definition anyway, since the definition there is derived from existing ICANN policy. So either deleting the reference in draft-ietf-regext-launchphase or making it informative seems legitimate. And in either case draft-ietf-regext-tmch-func-spec could then be made informational, which seems more appropriate than standards track, in which case the issue of normative references to ICANN PDPs is avoided. Alissa > On Oct 5, 2016, at 10:09 AM, Gould, James <[email protected]> wrote: > > There is a normative reference from the Standards Track > draft-ietf-regext-launchphase to draft-ietf-regext-tmch-func-spec to describe > the claims phase. Should draft-ietf-regext-launchphase remove this normative > reference and provide a brief description of the claims phase directly? > > — > > JG > > > <BF09FAA4-32D8-46E0-BED0-CD72F43BD6E0[81].png> > > James Gould > Distinguished Engineer > [email protected] <x-msg://46/[email protected]> > > 703-948-3271 > 12061 Bluemont Way > Reston, VA 20190 > > VerisignInc.com <http://verisigninc.com/> >> On Oct 5, 2016, at 9:31 AM, Peter Koch <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 09:26:33AM -0400, Marc Blanchet wrote: >> >>> and might not be organized for technical reference. One idea might be >>> to extract the technical stuff from ICANN documents and make it an IETF >>> document and then make it normative. A bit more work on IETF side but >> >> interesting side effect is that change control is with the IETF afterwards. >> >> Why exactly does the draft under consideration have to be Standards Track? >> >> -Peter >> >> _______________________________________________ >> regext mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext > > _______________________________________________ > regext mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
