On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 11:54 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 2:39 PM, Alia Atlas <akatlas@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Can you explain your different interpretation?
I see "Standards Track", which clearly means RFC, and "not Standards
Track". Assuming that to also mean RFC would be a logical error. If
the entire premise of 3967 is to describe how RFCs refer to other RFCs
of a lower maturity levels, it never outright says it. I agree that
this would appear to be the intent and interpretation, but it seems
like 3967-bis might be a neater way to address your central concern
(that we also refer to things other than RFCs, OMG, NIH!) FWIW, the
narrow scope here (and in 3967) does us all a disservice when a
slightly larger mallet would do the job more definitively.
It has frequently been the case that getting large policy changes through the IETF
is challenging and causes the non-controversial first steps to never happen. There
was a lot of work in NEWTRK that had such issues.
The issues around IPR considerations are different for a generic reference from
referencing another RFC or external standards body document, where the IPR policies
are clear and well-known.
While I would be happy (of course) to discuss what broader scope you think would be
preferable, the first question is whether there is community support for this narrow scope.
Regards,
Alia