We *could* open that can of worms, but a downref really sends
the same message with less work.
Brian
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Wednesday, 19 October, 2005 14:40 -0700 Bill Fenner
<fenner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 10/19/05, Frank Ellermann <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
... to see a big red blinking WAIT
for each normative reference to an informational RfC.
Not if the RFC 3967 procedure is followed ("Clarifying when
Standards Track Documents may Refer Normatively to Documents
at a Lower Level.")
Or, of course, we could ask for a Last Call and retroactively
reclassify RFC 1591 as a BCP. Because there was not even a
serious attempt to solicit or identify community consensus
around the variations that ICANN's ICP-1 introduced into the RFC
1591 norms and definitions, and a large fraction of top-level
domains and others have declined to accept the ICANN version,
1591 probably still does represent a best practice consensus in
most respects.
:-)
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf