On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 3:45 PM John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
I actually think that suggests something that should probably be
considered for BCP97bis: that the downref procedure and registry
should be used only when there are substantive reasons why the
relevant document cannot be upgraded or that doing so would
require an unreasonable amount of effort. That would strengthen
the text that now appears in the last paragraphs of Murray's
Sections 4.2 and 5 but even the current text suggests to me that
"trivial" is not a good enough reason for the use of that
registry.
I'm fine with strengthening this language if the community thinks it's necessary, but I thought I'd mention that there's a document on an upcoming telechat with a DISCUSS on it specifically because there's a normative downref to something that deserves consideration for advancement, so at least the current IESG is observing the preference BCP 97 already states.
-MSK
