--On Sunday, December 07, 2014 13:47 -0800 joel jaeggli <joelja@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> So, rather than go through a discussion about downrefs and the >> like every time RFC 20 is referenced from a Standards-Track >> specification, I suggest that the IESG reclassify it to >> Internet Standard and waste as little more time doing so as >> possible. > 3967 applies quite effectively > > Once a specific down reference to a particular document has > been accepted by the community (e.g., has been mentioned in > several Last Calls), an Area Director may waive subsequent > notices in the Last Call of down references to it. This > should only occur when the same document (and version) are > being referenced and when the AD believes that the > document's use is an accepted part of the community's > understanding of the relevant technical area. For example, > the use of MD5 [RFC1321] and HMAC [RFC2104] is well known > among cryptographers. Except that 3967 requires that the downref be _explicitly_ identified in Last Call announcements and that waiver doesn't apply unless that has been done. Approving documents that contain the downref without an explicit mention in the Last Call announcement may be fine and sensible but, as 3967 is written, doesn't count. One can quibble about the lower case "should not" (and, given how this conversation has gone, I'm certain someone will), but the paragraph of 3967 after the one you quoted expressly forbids the use of the 3967 procedure as a substitute for reclassifying a document "into the appropriate category". As John Levine pointed out, RFC 20 is a standard by any criteria one can use other than the failure of the RFC Editor and then the IESG to appropriately identify it. > Anyone raising downref issues with rfc 20 is out of their mind. There we agree, but this issue didn't come up because someone was looking for a way to start trouble. It came up in a real review because tools that reviewers are expected to look at and use called it out. We could figure out lots and lots of complicated ways to work around that problem, of which a Last Call that uses the 3967 mechanism (despite the prohibition) would be an example, but I need to once again ask why we don't just fix the problem and reclassify the document to reflect its obvious status. > that said you'll note a rather large gap in citations, given > that for something like 29 of the last 45 years there wasn't > an online copy in the rfc repository. (I added Heather to the distribute because of the above) To the best of my knowledge, there has _never_ been a requirement that cited documents be available online, and especially that authoritative copies be available online. Certainly it is preferred for many reasons, but never has it been a rule, nor is there a rule that makes RFCs special in that regard. If the IESG asked the community for permission to impose such a rule, it certainly was not within my memory. As to the "last 45 years", there simply has not been an online repository for that long, so that criticism would apply to any older RFC. If we want to start inventing new rules about citations to block progress, I think there are any number of members of the community who would be happy to contribute to the effort. More constructively, April 1 will be here soon. :-( john, probably becoming unbearable