Downward normative references to Informational documents continue to be allowed using the procedure specified in RFC 3967 [2]. Downward normative references to Historic documents, Experimental documents, and Internet-Draft documents continue to be prohibited.
I believe these two statements are in conflict and the conflict must be resolved. My reading of 3967 is that if the community has approved the use of an Experimental document or internet-draft as a downref in a specific last call, that downref is permitted and may even become institutionalized (see the text on an AD waiving further last calls). One of the reasons given in RFC 3967 is:
Unless a downref is permitted here, in other words, no coexistence or migration mechanism can ever advance to Internet Standard. This seems to me contrary to the aim of the document. I recommend that the Last Call for advancement re-iterate any downrefs as a specific part of the call and that these calls be lengthened to 4 weeks. This seems to me to follow the current BCPs best, but other resolutions are, of course, possible.
I strongly object to this text in Section 5:
2) At any time after two years from the approval of this document as
a BCP, the IESG may choose to reclassify any Draft Standard
document as Proposed Standard.
Section 1 already provides a method for any interested party to request that a document advance from Draft to Internet Standard. Creating another, less stringent method to be employed only after 2 years is, at best, odd. At worst, it seems like a signal that the IESG desires to do a mass update in the future, but does not wish to deal with the political fall-out of saying so at the same time as the publication of the document. I draw this inference from the fact that the current section 2 does not require any IETF-wide Last Call. If this is meant to say that after 2 years, any IESG member may put forward a Last Call for any document to be advanced, then I believe that the IESG member is simply taking the role of community member set forward in Section 1, and no further section is needed. IESG review, Last Call, and approval would still go forward according section 1.
In case this is not clear, I do not think a mass update is valuable or desirable. Many of the critical RFCs are pre-Track and no one much seems to mind. At most, I think saying that Internet Standards are permitted to reference Draft Standards is needed. (This can be inferred now from the fact that Proposed Standards may be referenced, but it wouldn't hurt to update that in section 4).
I also strongly believe that this proposal will not have the intended effect without concerted efforts by the IESG and WG Chairs to adhere to the new "Proposed Standard" vision. As a new WG Chair, I plan to push that vision for my own group, and I hope that the IESG will support that effort as this document intends.
regards,
Ted Hardie
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf