Eric (Rosen), Irrespective of opinions about the nature of the current process, if one RFC is advanced significantly ahead of another one that it has a normative dependency on, it is possible that the state of the art will migrate between one advancement, and the other. In the event that this occurs, the documents will be out of synch - irregardless of the actual state of the art. It is simple to fix that - either advance both at the same time, or allow them to be out of synch based on a speculative assertion that de-synchronization will not occur. In the latter case, it is certainly reasonable to allow that de-synchronization may occur - and that appears to be the intent of the note in this draft proposed process experiment. The risk is that - if the normative reference is advanced, and this produces a de-synchronization of the documents, then the referring Draft Standard will have to be updated as well. Consequently, I - for one - see nothing either false or misleading in the proposed note. I also find that addition of such a note is substantially less onerous than alternatives we have now... -- Eric (Gray) Your mail included [paraphrased]: --- [SNIP] --- --> --> Frankly, I think this [waver] procedure is outrageous, and entirely --> unacceptable. The fact [...] that the referenced document has not --> gone through some bureaucratic process does not mean that it is any --> less stable, or that any more caution is required in its use. --> --> Inserting this [language] about technology which may be well-proven --> and widely deployed will be extremely misleading to the industry. --> --> I think that any rule which requires us to insert false and misleading --> statements in the documents should be strongly opposed. --> --- [SNIP] --- _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf