--On Tuesday, August 23, 2011 18:02 -0400 Sam Hartman
<hartmans-ietf(_at_)mit(_dot_)edu> wrote:
"SM" == SM <sm(_at_)resistor(_dot_)net> writes:
SM> There is currently a DISCUSS for
draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02: SM> <process weenie="">
SM> The IETF LC
SM>
(https://www.ietf.org/ibin/c5i?mid=6&rid=49&gid=0&k1=934&k2=96
80&tid=1314107697) SM> did not call out the downrefs to
RFC 4954 and 5321. There is no SM> doubt in my mind that
no one will object to these downrefs, but SM> they need to
be explicitly called out in the IETF LC.
...
Hey, I think I read RFC 4897 once.
Someone's actually trying to use that? Who knew!
Seriously, section 3.1 of RFC 4897 makes it clear that an RFC
4897 downward reference does not need an RFC 3967-style
comment in the IETF last call. As best I can tell, this
discuss should be cleared because The AD is confused about
what BCP is being applied here.
Really this is one of those situations where we're all sitting
around the table playing a nice game of "publish that doc" and
people have to get out their copy of the IETF rules, the IETF
rules erata and the IETF player's magazine articles with rules
commentary and figure out what is going on.:-)
As someone else who read 4897 once or twice, and independent of
my role as co-editor of the draft in question,
+1.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf