| Hi Murray. I have on concern and a few editorial suggestions. CONCERN Section 4.1 says: o A note is included in the reference text that indicates that the reference is to a target document of a lower maturity level, that some caution should be used since it may be less stable than the document from which it is being referenced, and, optionally, explaining why the downref is appropriate. There are many cases where cryptographic algorithms are specified in Informational RFC, and then a Standards-Track document is used to specify protocol conventions for using that algorithm. the algorithm specification is not unstable, and requiring a note like this sends the wrong message to the reader. EDITORIAL Section 1 says: It should also be noted that Best Current Practice documents [RFC1818] have generally been considered similar to Standards Track documents in terms of what they can reference. For example, a normative reference to an Experimental RFC has been considered an improper reference per [RFC2026]. These two sentences are not really making the same point. With the second sentence starting with "For example", I expected it to be related to the first sentence. Section 1.1 uses the term "new RFC". However, the "new" is not needed. The defintion ofr a normative reference apply to very old RFCs too. Russ
|
