Hi,
After some more discussion there may be another way that actually is better. As the MIB is do dependent on the semantics the proposal would be to retarget RFC 3989 to proposed standard. Then we keep that as normative reference. The other two (RFC 3303,
RFC 3404) both are moved to informational part of the reference list. Any comments on this?
Cheers
Magnus Westerlund
Magnus Westerlund skrev:
Hi
In the IESG evaluation of the document it was realized that there was
three normative references (RFC 3303, RFC 3404, RFC 3989) that are to
informative documents. These are not allowed unless it can be accepted
under RFC3967.
I have discussed this with the authors and from our point of view RFC
3304 can be changed informative reference, it is not required for
implementing the protocol. However RFC 3989 is clearly required to be
implemented and that it seems that also RFC 3303 can be consider to be a
normative reference. Is anyone in the WG disagreeing about this
classification?
If the WG is agreeing on a classification that contains any
informational RFCs in the normative section the document will require a
new IETF last call that calls out these downrefs.
Cheers
Magnus Westerlund
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB | Phone +46 8 4048287
Torshamsgatan 23 | Fax +46 8 7575550
S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund at ericsson.com
_______________________________________________
midcom mailing list
midcom at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom
--
Magnus Westerlund
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB | Phone +46 8 4048287
Torshamsgatan 23 | Fax +46 8 7575550
S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund at ericsson.com
_______________________________________________
midcom mailing list
midcom at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom