On 12-May-24 13:45, Rob Sayre wrote:
On Sat, May 11, 2024 at 5:03 PM Erik Kline <ek.ietf@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:ek.ietf@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote: On this week's telechat is https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5990bis/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5990bis/> which has a Normative dependency on ANSI X9.44. I didn't know where to find that spec, but some light googling turned up: https://webstore.ansi.org/standards/ascx9/ansix9442007r2017 <https://webstore.ansi.org/standards/ascx9/ansix9442007r2017> which suggests it's available for 60 USD. The problem there, aside from the idea of paying for these things at all, is whether the things referenced are included in that $60. Not clear at all.
Indeed. And asking WGs to include a bit of analysis when citing a paywalled document seems reasonable. Like: "The bit assignments for XYZ are given in detail in section 7 of [SIXTY-DOLLAR-STD]." Or better: "The bit assignments for XYZ are listed below, consistent with [SIXTY-DOLLAR-STD]." Then it doesn't need to be a normative reference. On balance, maybe this draft doesn't need to be a BCP at all, because the IESG can behave as described anyway. Maybe it should be "Guidance to authors and WGs on paywalled references." Like: - Don't do it unless you have no alternative; - Try to avoid making it required reading, by including technical details in the I-D; - If you can't avoid the dependency, document it in detail in the I-D; - If you can't avoid the dependency, ensure that the WG, reviewers and the IESG have access during the review and approval process. Brian -- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
