Re: Status of RFC 202014-12-07 16:51:09On 12/7/14 2:13 PM, John C Klensin wrote: --On Sunday, December 07, 2014 13:47 -0800 joel jaeggli <joelja(_at_)bogus(_dot_)com> wrote:So, rather than go through a discussion about downrefs and the like every time RFC 20 is referenced from a Standards-Track specification, I suggest that the IESG reclassify it to Internet Standard and waste as little more time doing so as possible.3967 applies quite effectively 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.Except that 3967 requires that the downref be _explicitly_ identified in Last Call announcements and that waiver doesn't apply unless that has been done. There are normative citations of RFC 20 Q.E.D. Whether to include one on the future is a judgment call on the part of the person writing the last call writeup, e.g. the sponsoring AD. Approving documents that contain the downref without an explicit mention in the Last Call announcement may be fine and sensible but, as 3967 is written, doesn't count. ... To the best of my knowledge, there has _never_ been a requirement that cited documents be available online, and especially that authoritative copies be available online. That's not the point, nobody cited it because they couldn't read it.
signature.asc
|
|