Hi Alexey,
At 05:04 AM 7/21/2011, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
I would love for RFC 6186 being mentioned (can I bribe you guys
:-)?). However I do agree
You can try. :-)
that making it normative via use of SHOULD is too strong. Maybe an
Informative reference?
That can be considered if an implementation report of RFC 6186 is provided.
<rant>
I do find all arguments around "we can't add this reference because
it is going to be a downref" to be quite counter productive. Why are
we being so process oriented when having a downref might be the
right thing to do?
</rant>
I am not waving the "downref" argument from a purely process
perspective. The draft is intended to be published as a Full
Standard. In creating dependencies it is good if the maturity of the
dependency is taken into account. If the document has been stable
for some time, it can be assumed that it has matured irrespective of
what the label says. For example, RFC 4409 may be a Draft Standard
but the working group might recognize it as effectively at Full Standard.
There are changes that are "good to have" and changes that are a
"must have". The line between the two is not always clear. The
process angle is not about a "downref". It is about figuring out
what to do and drawing that line; and it should not be based on the
whims of a WG Chair.
I think mentioning RFC 5451 falls into a similar category to RFC 6186.
The proposed changes were evaluated on a case to case basis. Murray,
who happens to be the author of RFC 5451, agreed [1] that
"Authentication-Results:" is not a 4409 field and that the work can
be done in a 5451bis.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
YAM WG co-chair
1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00619.html
_______________________________________________
yam mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
