Clarifying when Standards Track Documents may Refer Normatively to Documents at a Lower Level
draft-ymbk-downref-03
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2021-10-07
|
03 | (System) | Received changes through RFC Editor sync (removed Errata tag (all errata rejected)) |
|
2012-08-22
|
03 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the Yes position for Allison Mankin |
|
2012-08-22
|
03 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the Yes position for Ted Hardie |
|
2005-01-04
|
03 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Amy Vezza |
|
2005-01-04
|
03 | Amy Vezza | [Note]: 'RFC 3967<br>BCP 97' added by Amy Vezza |
|
2005-01-03
|
03 | (System) | RFC published |
|
2004-07-26
|
03 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza |
|
2004-07-23
|
03 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
|
2004-07-23
|
03 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
|
2004-07-23
|
03 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
|
2004-07-23
|
03 | Harald Alvestrand | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Harald Alvestrand |
|
2004-07-23
|
03 | Ted Hardie | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Ted Hardie has been changed to Yes from Discuss by Ted Hardie |
|
2004-07-21
|
03 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
|
2004-07-21
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ymbk-downref-03.txt |
|
2004-06-15
|
03 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot comment] My Discuss wrt the issue Bert raised was addressed by making BCPs subject to the same Last Call procedure as other documents (removing … [Ballot comment] My Discuss wrt the issue Bert raised was addressed by making BCPs subject to the same Last Call procedure as other documents (removing Section 4). My Discuss on the definition of normative was addressed by writing the definition w/o regard to the RFC Editor definition. |
|
2004-06-15
|
03 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Allison Mankin has been changed to Yes from Undefined by Allison Mankin |
|
2004-06-15
|
03 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Allison Mankin has been changed to Undefined from Discuss by Allison Mankin |
|
2004-06-11
|
03 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2004-06-10 |
|
2004-06-10
|
03 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza |
|
2004-06-10
|
03 | Thomas Narten | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Recuse, has been recorded for Thomas Narten by Thomas Narten |
|
2004-06-10
|
03 | Bill Fenner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Bill Fenner by Bill Fenner |
|
2004-06-10
|
03 | Margaret Cullen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Margaret Wasserman by Margaret Wasserman |
|
2004-06-10
|
03 | David Kessens | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for David Kessens by David Kessens |
|
2004-06-10
|
03 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot discuss] The document is needed - so will work hard not to entangle it for long! Stating the definition of normative is adapted from … [Ballot discuss] The document is needed - so will work hard not to entangle it for long! Stating the definition of normative is adapted from the RFC Editor should be abandoned, because in this context, the definition of normative needs to be the IETF's definition, the one pertaining to the IETF's process and rules, which must be set by the IETF. (Duh). So the first paragraph under Section 1.1 beginning "Note: " needs to be deleted. In the definition, I think you should change the first words from "Within an RFC" to "Within an IETF RFC". ------ I'm taking a Discuss on the clarification request that Bert sent in. The text gives BCPs a way to normatively reference any RFC, which is a pretty strong boost for some RFCs. RFC Editor Experimentals with no Security Considerations might not be good normative references either, though I guess the IESG could push back during review. Should we consider having the Last Call procedure simply apply to the Experimentals referenced by BCPs rather than a special case for those, or narrow the language, using Bert's suggestion: This document explicitely allows BCP documents to contain normative references to non-Standards Track documents. Bert proposed: This document explicitly allows BCP documents to contain normative references to non-Standards Track documents containing specifications of Experimental protocols. I propose to put them all under the Last Call procedure. - The last bullet of Section 2 mentions BCP downref to Experimentals as one of the users of the Last Call procedure. - If the exception stays in place, Section 4 needs to say the Last Call procedure doesn't apply. Editorial: Also, it should be noted that the current practice has been that BCPs can reference Proposed Standards, and because BCPs have no concept of "advancing in grade", there are no down-reference issues when a BCP refers to a document on the Standards Track. This sentence is confusing: does it mean "Note that because BCPs have no concept of "advancing in grade" there are no down-reference issues when a BCP refers to a document on any level of the Standards Track, Proposed Standard, Draft Standard or Full Standard." ? |
|
2004-06-10
|
03 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Allison Mankin by Allison Mankin |
|
2004-06-10
|
03 | Jon Peterson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Jon Peterson by Jon Peterson |
|
2004-06-09
|
03 | Bert Wijnen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Bert Wijnen by Bert Wijnen |
|
2004-06-09
|
03 | Ted Hardie | [Ballot discuss] In Section 3, the document says: Once a specific precedent has been set (i.e., the same exception has been made for a … [Ballot discuss] In Section 3, the document says: Once a specific precedent has been set (i.e., the same exception has been made for a particular reference a few times), the need for an explicit mention of the issue during Last Call may be waived. I believe we need to expand this a bit, since I am afraid the armchair lawyers may try to run with the phrase "precedent" in directions we don't anticipate. Suggested text below; I'm not wedded to it, and I'd also be happy to remove this part of the procedure. Once a specific document down reference has been mentioned in several Last Calls, an AD may waive subsequent notices for 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, and an explicit notice of a downreference would not needed after the initial Last Calls have confirmed the wider community's acceptance of the practice. |
|
2004-06-09
|
03 | Ted Hardie | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Ted Hardie by Ted Hardie |
|
2004-06-09
|
03 | Alex Zinin | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alex Zinin by Alex Zinin |
|
2004-06-08
|
03 | Steven Bellovin | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Steve Bellovin by Steve Bellovin |
|
2004-06-08
|
03 | Russ Housley | [Ballot comment] In section 1.1: s/[RFC2223bis]/[2223bis]/ In section 4: s/[2026]/[RFC2026]/ In section 5: s/internet/Internet/ |
|
2004-06-08
|
03 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Russ Housley by Russ Housley |
|
2004-06-07
|
03 | Scott Hollenbeck | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Scott Hollenbeck by Scott Hollenbeck |
|
2004-06-03
|
03 | Harald Alvestrand | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Harald Alvestrand |
|
2004-06-03
|
03 | Harald Alvestrand | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2004-06-10 by Harald Alvestrand |
|
2004-06-03
|
03 | Harald Alvestrand | State Changes to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from Waiting for Writeup by Harald Alvestrand |
|
2004-06-03
|
03 | Harald Alvestrand | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Harald Alvestrand |
|
2004-06-03
|
03 | Harald Alvestrand | Ballot has been issued by Harald Alvestrand |
|
2004-06-03
|
03 | Harald Alvestrand | Created "Approve" ballot |
|
2004-05-31
|
03 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call by system |
|
2004-05-04
|
03 | Michelle Cotton | IANA Last Call Comments: The IANA understands there to be no IANA Actions for this document. |
|
2004-05-03
|
03 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
|
2004-05-03
|
03 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
|
2004-04-30
|
03 | Harald Alvestrand | Last Call was requested by Harald Alvestrand |
|
2004-04-30
|
03 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
|
2004-04-30
|
03 | (System) | Last call text was added |
|
2004-04-30
|
03 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
|
2004-04-30
|
03 | Harald Alvestrand | State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed by Harald Alvestrand |
|
2004-04-09
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ymbk-downref-02.txt |
|
2004-04-05
|
03 | Harald Alvestrand | State Changes to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation by Harald Alvestrand |
|
2004-04-05
|
03 | Harald Alvestrand | Fix needed for Bert's inconsistency note. Once -02 hits the directory, this is going for a 4-week Last Call. |
|
2004-03-26
|
03 | Harald Alvestrand | Comment from Bert Wijnen: Needs another bullet in section 2: o A BCP document may want to describe best current practices for experimental or … Comment from Bert Wijnen: Needs another bullet in section 2: o A BCP document may want to describe best current practices for experimental or informational specifications. Corresponding text is already present in section 4, so it's just a matter of making the document self-consistent. |
|
2004-03-10
|
03 | Harald Alvestrand | I think version -01 is ready for Last Call. Checking with IESG. |
|
2004-02-24
|
03 | Harald Alvestrand | State Changes to AD Evaluation from AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed by Harald Alvestrand |
|
2004-02-17
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ymbk-downref-01.txt |
|
2003-12-14
|
03 | Harald Alvestrand | The problem MAY have been fixed. (tracker, not doc) |
|
2003-12-14
|
03 | Harald Alvestrand | This is a test. There's a problem. |
|
2003-12-10
|
03 | Harald Alvestrand | Hope to have revised ID before Jan 12, 2004. |
|
2003-12-09
|
03 | Harald Alvestrand | State Changes to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation by Harald Alvestrand |
|
2003-12-09
|
03 | Harald Alvestrand | Exchanged mail with authors Nov 28; Thomas suggested respinning before Last Call. |
|
2003-11-24
|
03 | Harald Alvestrand | Would be nice to have (or refer to) a definition of "normative" and "informative" references. |
|
2003-11-17
|
03 | Harald Alvestrand | Comment based on a comment from Bernard Aboba: in section 2 bullet 1, "Protocol" should probably be "protocol or algorithm" - MD5 can hardly be … Comment based on a comment from Bernard Aboba: in section 2 bullet 1, "Protocol" should probably be "protocol or algorithm" - MD5 can hardly be said to be a protocol, and this clause is frequently invoked when talking about algorithms. |
|
2003-11-17
|
03 | Harald Alvestrand | Read through, found reasonable. Sent to gen-dir for review & opinions prior to IETF Last Call. |
|
2003-11-03
|
03 | Harald Alvestrand | State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Harald Alvestrand |
|
2003-10-30
|
03 | Harald Alvestrand | This document was generated based on IESG discussion of a recurring problem with downrefs. |
|
2003-10-30
|
03 | Harald Alvestrand | Draft Added by Harald Alvestrand |
|
2003-10-21
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ymbk-downref-00.txt |