On 2007-03-14 15:17, Pekka Savola wrote:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Just to confirm: 2818 has already been "downrefed" so it can be used in
this way without further formality.
http://www1.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/DownrefRegistry
There appear to have been two kinds of Last Calls:
1) Last Call for document X which also last calls that document's
downrefs, and
2) Separate Last Call about downrefs to document Y (rare, see 31 Jan
2007 example below)
2) is a special case of 1) in which the downref was initially
overlooked but was detected during the initial Last Call.
Which one(s) are you referring to?
If 1), there seems to be an assumption that if document X downrefs
document Y, and that downref is last-called, there is no need to Last
Call any downref to document Y.
There is no text in the Last Call message to suggests the downref should
be considered in a 'global' sense (more like 2) above), instead of in
the context of the referencing document.
No, that text is in RFC 3967.
I certainly wouldn't go as far as to say that if it's OK for
draft-dusseault-caldav to use RFC2818 in a normative sense, it would
automatically make it OK in every other protocol as well.
RFC 3967 says:
=====
Once a specific down reference to a particular document has been
accepted by the community (e.g., has been mentioned in several Last
Calls), an Area Director may waive subsequent notices in the Last
Call of down references to it. This should only occur when the same
document (and version) are being referenced and when the AD believes
that the document's use is an accepted part of the community's
understanding of the relevant technical area. For example, the use
of MD5 [RFC1321] and HMAC [RFC2104] is well known among
cryptographers.
=====
And I'm not sure if those requirements have been fulfilled yet. Am I
missing something?
The IESG is working on the basis that those requirements have been
met in this case. If not, the downref would need to be mentioned
in a Last Call.
This is one of the reasons draft-klensin-norm-ref is in Last Call;
although it doesn't remove the RFC 3967 procedure, it will make
things a lot clearer to anyone reviewing a draft that makes a
downref.
FWIW, there appear to be errors in the DownrefRegistry above. For
example, draft-ietf-lemonade-compress has not been Last Called this
year, and when -06 version was in Dec 2006, it had no mention of
downref. There is a 'global'-like Last Call on 31 Jan 2007 but it seems
to be about RFC 1951, not 1531.)
Yes, this seems odd. In fact -compress-07 cites 1951 and not 1531.
But on the other hand
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg03396.html
mentions a downref to 3576 which is not yet listed. And
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg03388.html
mentions a downref to 35985 which is not yet listed. There's
clearly some work to do to get this running smoothly.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf