On 4/20/15 4:02 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Hiya,
It was pointed out to me that RFC4949 as a normative
reference here is a downref, and I didn't call that
out during the IETF LC for this document. (Sorry about
that.) Oddly, 4949 hasn't previously been added to the
downref registry. [1]
That surprises me, given that RFC 4949 is already a normative reference
from draft-ietf-uta-tls-bcp as well as RFC 6749 and RFC 7489 (both of
which are standards-track).
So, the choices are:
1. make 4949 an informative reference (possible I think but
a teeny bit ickky)
A quick look at
http://www.arkko.com/tools/allstats/citations-rfc4949.html reveals that
most of the standards-track RFCs that cite RFC 4949 do so
informationally. So there's plenty of precedent. (It does seem to me,
however, that you really need to understand the cited glossary in order
to know what various terms mean in a given spec.)
2. I re-do the IETF LC just for this point and we put 4949
into [1] so this won't be a deal for other drafts in
future
I had assumed this would not be an issue given the RFCs cited above, but
I suppose there's always a first time for someone to be a process
stickler. :-)
Authors/chairs/WG: if you don't tell me you prefer #1 above,
I'll assume #2 and re-start the IETF LC for this one tomorrow.
Someone needs to blaze this path, so it might as well be us.
For IESG folks: if it's ok, I suggest you continue your
evaluations and we can handle this via me putting on a DISCUSS.
If that's bad somehow, just tell me and we can defer the doc
until the next telechat.
Whatever works for the IESG. :-)
Peter
--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://andyet.com/
_______________________________________________
Uta mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
