> -----Original Message----- > From: Sam Hartman [mailto:hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxx] > Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 1:33 PM > To: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Extensible Provisioning Protocol > (EPP)' to DraftStandard (draft-hollenbeck-epp-rfc3730bis) > > Hi. RFC 3967 is not applicable in cases where the appropriate > solution is to advance the normative downreference on the standards > track. In each case where you have a normative down reference, to a > PS, please explain why advancing that document is not the appropriate > solution. > > It is my opinion that "it would be hard to do so" is not a reasonable > answer to this question. Your note wasn't addressed to me, Sam, but I will assume that you're asking me the question. Since some of the reference RFCs are cited in multiple documents it'll be more efficient to address them individually. In all cases but one it's not the protocol that's being cited normatively, but a portion of the referenced specification. Advancing the referenced documents probably *is* the theoretically appropriate solution. The apparent lack of interest or inability to do so is the practical problem. Rather than being stalled indefinitely, I think I can remove or revise the normative references as follows: RFC 3023 (XML Media Types) Referenced by: draft-hollenbeck-epp-rfc3730bis-03 3023 is referenced only in the media registration template provided in appendix B. A case could be made that this reference is thus informative. RFC 3339 (Date and Time on the Internet: Timestamps) Referenced by: draft-hollenbeck-epp-rfc3730bis-03, draft-hollenbeck-epp-rfc3731bis-04, draft-hollenbeck-epp-rfc3732bis-03, draft-hollenbeck-epp-rfc3733bis-04 This reference is sited to capture a format that is also available in the W3C's XML Schema specifications. It can be replaced with an existing normative reference to the W3C specification. RFC 3513 (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Addressing Architecture) Referenced by: draft-hollenbeck-epp-rfc3732bis-03 This reference is cited only to capture IPv6 address syntax. 3513 has been obsoleted by 4291, which is a draft standard. The reference to 3513 could be replaced with a reference to 4291. RFC 2822 (Internet Message Format) Referenced by: draft-hollenbeck-epp-rfc3733bis-04 This reference is cited only to capture SMTP email address syntax. It can be replaced with RFC 822, which is a full standard. RFC 2246 (The TLS Protocol Version 1.0) Referenced by: draft-hollenbeck-epp-rfc3734bis-03 This is probably a problem because rfc3734bis does indeed require an implementation of TLS. 2246 has been obsoleted by 4346 (TLS 1.1), which is itself a Proposed Standard. The TLS working group is currently working on 4346bis (TLS 1.2); the intent is to produce another Proposed Standard. Perhaps rfc3734bis could be recycled at Proposed until 4346bis or a successor progresses or our standards track processes change to deal with the situation some other way. The other possibility is to consider this text from 3967: "There are exceptional procedural or legal reasons that force the target of the normative reference to be an informational or historical RFC or to be at a lower standards level than the referring document." with a specific focus on the "exceptional procedural" words. The TLS working group (established in 1996) charter doesn't currently include a plan to advance any version of the specification to Draft Standard status. I've been following the TLS work and I understand the need for revisions to deal with vulnerabilities, but the lack of a Draft Standard version of TLS puts all work that depends on TLS in standards track purgatory. Is that an "exceptional procedural" reason? -Scott- _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf