>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Petch <sisyphus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Tom> I have no problem with the underlying idea, in so far as I
Tom> understand it, but I do not agree that this I-D is the best
Tom> way to achieve it.
Tom> I think that my problem is well illustrated by a sentence in
Tom> the Abstract ' This document replaces the "hold on normative
Tom> reference" rule will be replaced by a "note downward
Tom> normative reference and move on" approach. ' As may be
Tom> apparent, this brief - three pages plus boilerplate - I-D,
Tom> aimed at BCP status, only partly updates or replaces BCP97
Tom> (also three pages plus boilerplate) so we will in future have
Tom> to conflate two documents to understand what is on offer.
My strong preference as an individual is to approve this document as
is. I think there's a good split between RFC 3967 and this document.
RFC 3967 will cover informational documents; this document will cover
standards track.
I'm not in principle opposed to having one document but I am opposed
to the delay it would introduce.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf