On 12/7/14 2:13 PM, John C Klensin wrote: > > --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. There are normative citations of RFC 20 Q.E.D. Whether to include one on the future is a judgment call on the part of the person writing the last call writeup, e.g. the sponsoring AD. > 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. ... > 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. That's not the point, nobody cited it because they couldn't read it. >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature