Re: Last Call: 'Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)' to DraftStandard (draft-hollenbeck-epp-rfc3730bis)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



>>>>> "Hollenbeck," == Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenbeck@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

    >> -----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)
    Hollenbeck,> RFC 2246 (The TLS Protocol Version 1.0) Referenced
    Hollenbeck,> by: draft-hollenbeck-epp-rfc3734bis-03 This is
    Hollenbeck,> probably a problem because rfc3734bis does indeed
    Hollenbeck,> require an implementation of TLS.  2246 has been
    Hollenbeck,> obsoleted by 4346 (TLS 1.1), which is itself a
    Hollenbeck,> Proposed Standard.  The TLS working group is
    Hollenbeck,> currently working on 4346bis (TLS 1.2); the intent is
    Hollenbeck,> to produce another Proposed Standard.  Perhaps
    Hollenbeck,> rfc3734bis could be recycled at Proposed until
    Hollenbeck,> 4346bis or a successor progresses or our standards
    Hollenbeck,> track processes change to deal with the situation
    Hollenbeck,> some other way.  The other possibility is to consider
    Hollenbeck,> this text from 3967:

    Hollenbeck,> "There are exceptional procedural or legal reasons
    Hollenbeck,> that force the target of the normative reference to
    Hollenbeck,> be an informational or historical RFC or to be at a
    Hollenbeck,> lower standards level than the referring document."

    Hollenbeck,> with a specific focus on the "exceptional procedural"
    Hollenbeck,> words.  

If we have IETf consensus that we consider this sort of procedural
reason sufficient, then I support the exception.  I also support such
an IETf consensus.

I think that would be a significant change in how we approach draft
standards.  While I don't mind using your document as a test case,I do
think it important that your document not be unusual in this regard.
If we approve this sort of exception we should plan to approve
exceptions whenever similar situations arise.

If we're going to do that we should update RFC 3967 to be more clear.

So, let's see if we have consensus on your document set .  If so,
let's go publish your documents.  Then I can try to recruit someone to
make minor updates to 3967.

--Sam


_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]