Brian Carpenter wrote: > [...] > So, in conclusion, the IESG seeks comments on whether there is > community interest in turning the first part of this experiment into a > BCP. The IESG also seeks comments from interested document editors > and working group chairs pointing to instances where the second part > of the experiment would be useful. In particular, please let the IESG > know about upcoming work where being able to reference approved > Internet Drafts from RFCs would be useful; please explain how it would > be useful. Unless the IESG finds significant cases where the second > part of this experiment will be useful, the IESG plans to decline to > run that part of the experiment. > In general I am not in favor of 3933 experiments regarding permanent document series, and so I believe the IESG is right to suggest that a BCP is appropriate in this case. While I am in favor of moving ahead with a BCP to remove the restriction on normative references, I believe this really to be a half measure. There are many more reasons why documents do not progress through the standards track, such as having to matrix out each feature. Very few people want to do that work. And so I ask that as we move forward with the BCP you propose above, once approved we monitor its progress to see if *anything* changes. If after 18 months we see no changes I would ask for further action. Eliot _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf