Le 2015-03-11 12:46, Ted Lemon a écrit :
On Mar 4, 2015, at 10:43 PM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
4) I’ve also received feedback from IESG members that the text about moving 2870 to Historic in Section 1.1 could be problematic. While I’m not sure that is necessarily the case, I think this draft merely replaces 2870, so I am not sure we need to say anything more. I have confirmed with the IAB that it does not believe the part about moving 2870 to Historic is necessary. Does anyone object to this change?
Somewhat belatedly, what struck me about this is that we are obsoleting a BCP document and replacing it with an ICANN document the PDF for which has the word DRAFT emblazoned in large friendly letters on every page. What gives here? If we are replacing a BCP with some document, hadn't that document ought to be a finished document? I don't object to the change in principle, but it seems a bit weird to make the change when part of what is obsoleting 2870 is a document that's not been published yet.
the ICANN RSSAC01 document has been approved. it is written DRAFT
because it is pending our own document so they will update it to change
the reference to our RFC number. This sync process has been carefully
designed for this purpose.
Marc.
I guess it's easier to do it in one step than two, but if what we are really doing is ceding authority to ICANN for specifying how root servers are operated, shouldn't we say that rather than referencing an ICANN work-in-progress document? I think that is what we are effectively doing whether we say so explicitly or not.
I apologize if all this has already been discussed, but I can't find a discussion of this specific issue in the mailing list archives.