--On Tuesday, August 23, 2011 18:02 -0400 Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>> "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=96 > 80&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. >... > 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.:-) As someone else who read 4897 once or twice, and independent of my role as co-editor of the draft in question, +1. john _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf