--On Monday, March 25, 2024 14:02 -0700 Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi - > > On 2024-03-25 1:51 PM, S Moonesamy wrote: >> Hi Randy, >> At 01:19 PM 25-03-2024, Randy Presuhn wrote: >>> 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." >> >> This takes the discussion to what Mike pointed out at >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/FqmdAQY_C7jOGh_KV- >> HkC5MP7Xs >> >> I also mentioned "formal public specification". If I am not >> mistaken, that would include standards from other bodies or >> national standards for which a code point is required. > > If it's ok to cite an I-D as "work in progress," how is that > different from "informal documentation" in any meaningful way? If it is being used as part of the definition for an entry in an IANA registry, that makes it "reference material", not just a work in progress. In addition, if it were actually a work in progress, that would make it unsuitable for part of the definition for a registry entry because it would be an odd indeed to have a registration of a moving target rather than a stable definition. I think that may be just a different way to express Mike's concern. best, john
