I agree with these comments, and I'll tackle them in -01 of the draft. Russ On 6/20/2010 5:53 AM, SM wrote: > In Section 6: > > 'The current rule prohibiting "down references" is a major cause > of stagnation in the advancement of documents.' > > There isn't any current rule that prohibits "down references". The > reason for discouraging downward references is to have the specification > at the same maturity level. > "Downward reference by annotation" can still be used. That allows the > community to balance the importance of getting a document published. > > In Section 7: > > "In several situations, a Standard is obsoleted by a Proposed Standard" > > A Standard is not obsoleted by a Proposed Standard. A RFC with a status > of Internet Standard can be obsoleted by a RFC at Proposed Standard. > > In Section 8: > > "On the day these changes are published as a BCP, all existing Draft > Standard and Standard documents automatically get reclassified as > Interoperable Standard documents" > > One of the benefits of doing this is that the IP Version 6 Addressing > Architecture can be recognized as a "Standard" for whatever definition > of standard this community finds suitable. > > This document has RFC 2606 as an Informative Reference. That should at > the very least be a Normative Reference. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf