On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 11:27 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 2:18 PM, Alia Atlas <akatlas@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The existing downref process (RFC 3967) doesn't apply. That is to handle
> references to
> an RFC that is at a lower maturity - such as a normative reference to an
> Informational or
> Experimental RFC - or from an Internet Standard to a Proposed Standard.
I couldn't find anything in 3967 to support that view (other than the
parenthetical in the abstract). Maybe it's implicit.
Well, certainly if you look at how the DownRef registry was incorporated into datatracker
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/ ), the first item is RFC and the second is the
referring draft. At the least, it is clearly how it has been interpreted.
For that matter, the abstract clearly says:
have a normative reference to another standards track document at a
lower maturity level or to a non standards track specification (other
than specifications from other standards bodies). For example, a
standards track document may not have a normative reference to an
informational RFC. Exceptions to this rule are sometimes needed as
the IETF uses informational RFCs to describe non-IETF standards or
IETF-specific modes of use of such standards. This document
clarifies and updates the procedure used in these circumstances."
I don't see how this could be interpreted as allowing references to specifications
from something that isn't from a standards body - though RFC2026 does talk about
references to proprietary specifications - which has turned into asking for re-publication
on the ISE stream. Indeed RFC 3967 says "A standards document may need to refer
to a proprietary protocol, and the IETF normally documents proprietary protocols using
informational RFCs."
informational RFCs."
Personally, I have not seen it work well or be generally perceived as anything more
than a waste of time to ask well specified and widely available mature open source
work to come and be republished as an Independent Stream Informational RFC. The
situation can be different for proprietary solutions and there are also different assumptions
then in terms of control of the technology.
Can you explain your different interpretation?
Regards,
Alia