--On Sunday, October 17, 2021 18:53 -0700 "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 also just noticed that the draft does not appear to describe >> the contents and format of that registry, what entity is >> responsible for keeping it, and where. Especially if we take >> the position that, once something is in that registry, no >> special procedures (or different procedures) need be followed >> to use the reference in another document, the registry should >> record why downref permission was granted, in which the >> document's categories the reference falls, and any additional >> explanation that seems necessary -- that information should >> not just be in the Last Call. My instinct tells me that the >> RFC Editor Function should be responsible for the registry >> itself, but that might raise issues I have not thought of yet. >> > > Describing the registry's current structure and maintenance is > easy enough. I'll add that. Thanks. > It would probably be a nightmare to add that retroactively for > the entries already present, but the publication of this > revision to BCP 97 could stipulate that, going forward, the > reason for downref permission needs to be recorded and made > visible for future entries, and who the responsible AD was. Works for me. I think it is far more important that we avoid creating additional messes in that future than that we clean up ones that have been there for years. > What did you mean by "in which document's categories the > reference falls"? In essence, the descriptions in your sections 4.2, 5, and 6 create categories of downrefs. I'd be inclined to divide 6 into two subcategories, one for what we have called "recognized standards bodies" in other contexts and one for other types of external references. Either way, I think that categorization could be very helpful going forward and I was suggesting that it should be included in the registry. best, john
