--On Thursday, March 01, 2012 19:38 +0100 "Sprecher, Nurit (NSN
- IL/Hod HaSharon)" <nurit(_dot_)sprecher(_at_)nsn(_dot_)com> wrote:
Draft-betts asks a code point for a document which is not
mature and not agreed yet. Usually we do not issue last call
for a document in such a condition!
Actually, we do that fairly regularly. Have a look at the RFC
Editor queue, see how many documents have a status that includes
"MISSREF", and you will get an idea of how many recent ones
there are. Of course, for that analogy to hold, draft-betts
itself must be complete and competent. But a forward normative
reference is not a problem: it just goes into the RFC Editor
queue and, normally, IANA doesn't start doing any assignments on
the basis of such documents until the problems/ references are
resolved and the RFC Editor is editing.
And in addition, draft-betts has many issues that must be
resolved first.
For example it must be clear for what the code point is
requested. Draft-betts indicates that G.8113.1 is subjected to
revisions...they may add more messages to G.8113.1 that will
be hidden behind the code point, etc.
IMO, that should not be part of the IETF's problem. It is part
of the forward reference. As far as I can tell, Russ is not
suggesting actually allocating a code point until (and unless)
G.8113.1 is formally approved and hence complete and "hiding"
nothing.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf