Hi John, On 07.04.2024 19:47, John Scudder wrote:
I think one or more of the contributions to this thread expressed dismay that by referencing an I-D from a registry (or approving a registry policy that permits the same) we harm ourselves by giving the lie to the "inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference" I-D boilerplate. Others have pointed out the "including informal documentation” phrasing of RFC 8126’s definition of “Specification Required”. These two things are manifestly in tension, but I’d like to point out that to resolve that tension by being sticklers for the draft boilerplate disclaimer, i.e. refusing to approve registries that permit I-D’s as references for Specification Required, would be to create a perverse incentive for authors to do their work outside the IETF.
I'm not sure that's perverse, because it's laying responsibility at the feet of those who have a vested interest in maintaining interoperability of their works.
Eliot
Attachment:
OpenPGP_0x87B66B46D9D27A33.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
