I believe that if we follow the authors' suggestion
to proceed rapidly, Tom's concern could be met by
a simple informational note summarizing how to deal
with downrefs in practice. Such a note could be input to
an eventual combined document after some experience,
as John suggests.
Brian
On 2007-02-25 00:00, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Saturday, February 24, 2007 4:09 PM -0500 Sam Hartman
<hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
"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.
Tom,
This is very much up to the IESG, but my personal opinion is that we are
better off putting this draft through as is and then coming back and
revisiting the situation in a year or so, once we have gotten some
experience with the combination. My guess -- harking back to the
original "process experiment" theory -- is that some tuning is going to
be needed and that there is no point in tangling 3967 up with the tuning
process. That assumption is particularly important because Sam's
observation of 3967 for informational (and experimental) documents and
this for standards-track is what I'm expecting too... but it is an
assumption. One can imagine the community responding to a downref under
this procedure for a particular document by saying "just too dangerous
to do it that way; let's use the 3967 procedure in that case". We
might be willing to eliminate that possibility once we have some more
experience, but I'd think it would be dangerous to do so right now. So,
for the present, we have this procedure for standards-track documents
when it seems appropriate and 3967 for everything else.
In a year or two, if anyone cares, we can fold the two together on the
basis of actual experience (or fold both into the long-avoided 2026bis).
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf