The document currently says:
Downward normative references to Informational documents continue to
be allowed using the procedure specified in RFC 3967 .
Downward normative references to Historic documents, Experimental
documents, and Internet-Draft documents continue to be prohibited.
I believe these two statements are in conflict and the conflict must be
resolved. My reading of 3967 is that if the community has approved the use
of an Experimental document or internet-draft as a downref in a specific last
call, that downref is permitted and may even become institutionalized (see
the text on an AD waiving further last calls). One of the reasons given in
RFC 3967 is:
o A migration or co-existence document may need to define a standards track
mechanism for migration from, and/or co-existence with, an historic protocol,
a proprietary protocol, or possibly a non-standards track protocol.
Unless a downref is permitted here, in other words, no coexistence or
migration mechanism can ever advance to Internet Standard. This seems to me
contrary to the aim of the document. I recommend that the Last Call for
advancement re-iterate any downrefs as a specific part of the call and that
these calls be lengthened to 4 weeks. This seems to me to follow the current
BCPs best, but other resolutions are, of course, possible.
Good catch. I think we should revise this to allow normative references to
Informational, Experimental, and Historic RFCs using the procedures in RFC 3967.
I strongly object to this text in Section 5:
2) At any time after two years from the approval of this document as
a BCP, the IESG may choose to reclassify any Draft Standard
document as Proposed Standard.
Section 1 already provides a method for any interested party to request that
a document advance from Draft to Internet Standard. Creating another, less
stringent method to be employed only after 2 years is, at best, odd. At
worst, it seems like a signal that the IESG desires to do a mass update in
the future, but does not wish to deal with the political fall-out of saying
so at the same time as the publication of the document. I draw this
inference from the fact that the current section 2 does not require any
IETF-wide Last Call. If this is meant to say that after 2 years, any IESG
member may put forward a Last Call for any document to be advanced, then I
believe that the IESG member is simply taking the role of community member
set forward in Section 1, and no further section is needed. IESG review,
Last Call, and approval would still go forward according section 1.
In case this is not clear, I do not think a mass update is valuable or
desirable. Many of the critical RFCs are pre-Track and no one much seems to
mind. At most, I think saying that Internet Standards are permitted to
reference Draft Standards is needed. (This can be inferred now from the fact
that Proposed Standards may be referenced, but it wouldn't hurt to update
that in section 4).
I also strongly believe that this proposal will not have the intended effect
without concerted efforts by the IESG and WG Chairs to adhere to the new
"Proposed Standard" vision. As a new WG Chair, I plan to push that vision
for my own group, and I hope that the IESG will support that effort as this
I am lost here. Based on a previous version of the Internet-Draft, the
question was raised by Brian Carpenter about documents that were stuck in a
state Draft Standard after that label is abandoned. There was discussion on
the list, and some people felt that it was neither confusing nor harmful, while
others thought that it would lead to confusion. This proposal is intended to
let the IESG decide, If it is not considered a problem, they can do nothing.
If it is considered a problem, they can move the Draft Standard DOWN to
Proposed Standard. Your use of "be advanced" makes me wonder if you got a
Ietf mailing list