[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[INDEP] Re: Preview of draft-iab-rfc-independent-00.txt

Dave,

Dave Thaler wrote:
The issue is here: 
  particular Internet Draft for publication.  The process is described
  in more detail in [RFC2223] and a working draft of an update to it
  [RFC2223bis].

Since [RFC2223bis] is a normative reference, this means that the draft
as is could not be published as an RFC until after [RFC2223bis] appears
as an RFC. 

I believe the intent was to refer to the *working draft*.  Which
means, no, there was not an expectation of waiting for it to be
published as an RFC.

If it needs to be made clearer that it is informative, perhaps

"The process is described in [RFC2223].  Further information can
be found in the working draft of an update of that document
[RFC2223bis]."

Leslie.


If this is the intent, then I think the sentence should be 
changed to:

  particular Internet Draft for publication.  The process is described
  in more detail in [RFC2223bis].


If it is not the intent, then I think the sentence should be changed to:

  particular Internet Draft for publication.  The process is described
  in more detail in [RFC2223] and its successors.


-Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: Leslie Daigle [mailto:leslie at thinkingcat.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 2:47 PM
To: Dave Thaler
Cc: independent at ietf.org; IAB
Subject: Re: Preview of draft-iab-rfc-independent-00.txt


I'll let Olaf comment on most of these issues, but
wanted to respond to one:

Dave Thaler wrote:
3) There is a normative reference to an Internet Draft dated August
2004
(rfc2223bis). I would propose removing the reference to that draft,
and 
just referencing RFC 2223.  (The RFC Editor will of course update
the reference during publication to the most recent RFC at that
time.) 
I searched for instances of 2223 in the document, and believe
the current text is fine.  (I wasn't clear, from the above, whether
you thought it was okay as is, or wanted to do further surgery).

The issue with 2223bis is that it a) is significantly different than
RFC2223, b) has been languishing for quite a while (a lot longer than
since 2004) and c) has nevertheless been a guiding document in spite
of its status.

So, I don't believe you can just drop mention of it.  The current
text refers to RFC2223 and its successors, and that seems about
right.


Leslie. 


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