Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-norm-ref (Handling Normative References for Standards Track Documents) to BCP

[Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf at mit.edu>]

>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Petch <sisyphus at dial.pipex.com> writes:

    Tom> I have no problem with the underlying idea, in so far as I
    Tom> understand it, but I do not agree that this I-D is the best
    Tom> way to achieve it.

    Tom> I think that my problem is well illustrated by a sentence in
    Tom> the Abstract ' This document replaces the "hold on normative
    Tom> reference" rule will be replaced by a "note downward
    Tom> normative reference and move on" approach. ' As may be
    Tom> apparent, this brief - three pages plus boilerplate - I-D,
    Tom> aimed at BCP status, only partly updates or replaces BCP97
    Tom> (also three pages plus boilerplate) so we will in future have
    Tom> to conflate two documents to understand what is on offer.

My strong preference as an individual is to approve this document as
is.  I think there's a good split between RFC 3967 and this document.
RFC 3967 will cover informational documents; this document will cover
standards track.

I'm not in principle opposed to having one document but I am opposed
to the delay it would introduce.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf