>>>>> "SM" == SM <sm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
SM> There is currently a DISCUSS for draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02:
SM> <process weenie="">
SM> The IETF LC
SM> (https://www.ietf.org/ibin/c5i?mid=6&rid=49&gid=0&k1=934&k2=9680&tid=1314107697)
SM> did not call out the downrefs to RFC 4954 and 5321. There is no
SM> doubt in my mind that no one will object to these downrefs, but
SM> they need to be explicitly called out in the IETF LC.
SM> </process>
SM> The intent of this message is to discuss the DISCUSS as there
SM> seems to be a misunderstanding about down-refs. I do not
SM> consider it as inappropriate for the AD to have lodged the above
SM> DISCUSS.
SM> The argument for this DISCUSS is that the downrefs to RFC 4954
SM> and 5321 have not been called out during the IETF Last Call.
SM> The quick fix is to rerun the Last Call. That approach would
SM> not materially affect the outcome.
SM> I have pointed out during the Last Call that there are down-refs
SM> [1] and provided a justification for them. Appendix B of
SM> draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02 contains a RFC 4897 statement/
SM> disclaimer.
Hey, I think I read RFC 4897 once.
Someone's actually trying to use that? Who knew!
Seriously, section 3.1 of RFC 4897 makes it clear that an RFC 4897
downward reference does not need an RFC 3967-style comment in the IETF
last call. As best I can tell, this discuss should be cleared because
The AD is confused about what BCP is being applied here.
Really this is one of those situations where we're all sitting around
the table playing a nice game of "publish that doc" and people have to
get out their copy of the IETF rules, the IETF rules erata and the IETF
player's magazine articles with rules commentary and figure out what is
going on.:-)
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf