Hi -
On 2024-03-25 12:50 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
Hi Mike,
At 11:49 AM 25-03-2024, Michael StJohns wrote:
Context for the IETF list. A set of IANA notes were included in
RFC8447 that allowed IDs to be considered as satisfying "Specification
Required" for the purpose of issuing code points in IANA registries.
The IANA requires stable references for a Specification Required.
However, to quote from the ID boilerplate, "It is inappropriate to
use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than
as "work in progress."
These two seem to be in conflict.
The "Specification Required" policy is defined in "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs" (BCP 26) as a formal
public specification. The BCP also contains some information about the
intent behind the policy. I'll quote some text from the BCP as it may
easier for the occassional reader:
"Publication of an RFC is an ideal means of achieving this
requirement, but Specification Required is intended to also
cover the case of a document published outside of the RFC path,
including informal documentation."
There is also another policy which states "RFC Required" which is a bar
higher in comparison with "Specification Required".
The "IANA Registry Updates for TLS and DTLS" (RFC 8447) is on the
Standards Track. The RFC is about instructions for the designed experts
and IANA. Section 12, for example, states that "It is sufficient to
have an Internet-Draft (that is posted and never published as an RFC) or
a document from another standards body, industry consortium, university
site, etc."
There is a conflict between BCP 26 and RFC 8447.
...
What is the conflict you see? The text you cited seems to me to present
no conflict. A posted Internet-Draft certainly seems to fit within
the realm of "a document published outside of the RFC path, including
informal documentation."
Randy
