"Hollenbeck," == Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenbeck(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com>
writes:
>> -----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)
Hollenbeck,> RFC 2246 (The TLS Protocol Version 1.0) Referenced
Hollenbeck,> by: draft-hollenbeck-epp-rfc3734bis-03 This is
Hollenbeck,> probably a problem because rfc3734bis does indeed
Hollenbeck,> require an implementation of TLS. 2246 has been
Hollenbeck,> obsoleted by 4346 (TLS 1.1), which is itself a
Hollenbeck,> Proposed Standard. The TLS working group is
Hollenbeck,> currently working on 4346bis (TLS 1.2); the intent is
Hollenbeck,> to produce another Proposed Standard. Perhaps
Hollenbeck,> rfc3734bis could be recycled at Proposed until
Hollenbeck,> 4346bis or a successor progresses or our standards
Hollenbeck,> track processes change to deal with the situation
Hollenbeck,> some other way. The other possibility is to consider
Hollenbeck,> this text from 3967:
Hollenbeck,> "There are exceptional procedural or legal reasons
Hollenbeck,> that force the target of the normative reference to
Hollenbeck,> be an informational or historical RFC or to be at a
Hollenbeck,> lower standards level than the referring document."
Hollenbeck,> with a specific focus on the "exceptional procedural"
Hollenbeck,> words.
If we have IETf consensus that we consider this sort of procedural
reason sufficient, then I support the exception. I also support such
an IETf consensus.
I think that would be a significant change in how we approach draft
standards. While I don't mind using your document as a test case,I do
think it important that your document not be unusual in this regard.
If we approve this sort of exception we should plan to approve
exceptions whenever similar situations arise.
If we're going to do that we should update RFC 3967 to be more clear.
So, let's see if we have consensus on your document set . If so,
let's go publish your documents. Then I can try to recruit someone to
make minor updates to 3967.
--Sam
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf