![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
In many cases (probably the vast majority) where a document is advancing despite a "downward normative reference", the referenced document (and the technology described therein) is no less stable than the referencing document, and no "caution" is required. It's great to be able to "make a downward reference and move on", but we should not be required to tell lies and spread FUD.
Inflammatory language aside, I agree.
Another alternative, probably a better one, is simply to annotate each reference with its standards status, and make no editorial comment about it at all.
The IESG may, at its discretion, specify the exact text to be used, establish procedures regarding the text to use, or give guidance on this text. When establishing procedures the IESG should seek appropriate community review.
These annotations are part of the source document. If members of the community consider either the downward reference or the annotation text to be inappropriate, those issues can be raised at any time in the document life cycle, just as with any other text in the document. There is no separate review on these references.
(1) To make it easier to catch potentially problematic downrefs (2) To encourage the advancement of frequently-referenced documents along the standards track.
-- Jeff
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.