ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Last Call: 'Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)' to DraftStandard (draft-hollenbeck-epp-rfc3730bis)

2006-10-17 05:47:27
-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Hartman [mailto:hartmans-ietf(_at_)mit(_dot_)edu] 
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 1:33 PM
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Extensible Provisioning Protocol 
(EPP)' to DraftStandard (draft-hollenbeck-epp-rfc3730bis)

Hi.  RFC 3967 is not applicable in cases where the appropriate
solution is to advance the normative downreference on the standards
track.  In each case where you have a normative down reference, to a
PS, please explain why advancing that document is not the appropriate
solution.

It is my opinion that "it would be hard to do so" is not a reasonable
answer to this question.

Your note wasn't addressed to me, Sam, but I will assume that you're
asking me the question.  Since some of the reference RFCs are cited in
multiple documents it'll be more efficient to address them individually.
In all cases but one it's not the protocol that's being cited
normatively, but a portion of the referenced specification.

Advancing the referenced documents probably *is* the theoretically
appropriate solution.  The apparent lack of interest or inability to do
so is the practical problem.  Rather than being stalled indefinitely, I
think I can remove or revise the normative references as follows:

RFC 3023 (XML Media Types)
Referenced by: draft-hollenbeck-epp-rfc3730bis-03
3023 is referenced only in the media registration template provided in
appendix B.  A case could be made that this reference is thus
informative.

RFC 3339 (Date and Time on the Internet: Timestamps)
Referenced by: draft-hollenbeck-epp-rfc3730bis-03,
draft-hollenbeck-epp-rfc3731bis-04, draft-hollenbeck-epp-rfc3732bis-03,
draft-hollenbeck-epp-rfc3733bis-04
This reference is sited to capture a format that is also available in
the W3C's XML Schema specifications.  It can be replaced with an
existing normative reference to the W3C specification.

RFC 3513 (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Addressing Architecture)
Referenced by: draft-hollenbeck-epp-rfc3732bis-03
This reference is cited only to capture IPv6 address syntax.  3513 has
been obsoleted by 4291, which is a draft standard.  The reference to
3513 could be replaced with a reference to 4291.

RFC 2822 (Internet Message Format)
Referenced by: draft-hollenbeck-epp-rfc3733bis-04
This reference is cited only to capture SMTP email address syntax.  It
can be replaced with RFC 822, which is a full standard.

RFC 2246 (The TLS Protocol Version 1.0)
Referenced by: draft-hollenbeck-epp-rfc3734bis-03
This is probably a problem because rfc3734bis does indeed require an
implementation of TLS.  2246 has been obsoleted by 4346 (TLS 1.1), which
is itself a Proposed Standard.  The TLS working group is currently
working on 4346bis (TLS 1.2); the intent is to produce another Proposed
Standard.  Perhaps rfc3734bis could be recycled at Proposed until
4346bis or a successor progresses or our standards track processes
change to deal with the situation some other way.  The other possibility
is to consider this text from 3967:

"There are exceptional procedural or legal reasons that force the target
of the normative reference to be an informational or historical RFC or
to be at a lower standards level than the referring document."

with a specific focus on the "exceptional procedural" words.  The TLS
working group (established in 1996) charter doesn't currently include a
plan to advance any version of the specification to Draft Standard
status.  I've been following the TLS work and I understand the need for
revisions to deal with vulnerabilities, but the lack of a Draft Standard
version of TLS puts all work that depends on TLS in standards track
purgatory.  Is that an "exceptional procedural" reason?

-Scott-

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>