IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [6lo] Draft applicability for 6775bis

Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net> Tue, 04 April 2017 14:42 UTC

Return-Path: <brian@innovationslab.net>
X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56E7F12950C for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 07:42:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iUqeeU5Z-3Ki for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 07:42:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uillean.fuaim.com (uillean.fuaim.com [206.197.161.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 25F2F1294C3 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 07:42:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clairseach.fuaim.com (clairseach-high.fuaim.com [206.197.161.158]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uillean.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13F8F880F3 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 07:42:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clemson.local (unknown [76.21.129.88]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clairseach.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C33E33280AE4 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 07:42:30 -0700 (PDT)
To: 6lo@ietf.org
References: <0d33195c-d828-1d5b-6a49-ca23d9d4a793@sonic.net> <CY1PR03MB22654E9D09DC4384A74D9188A3350@CY1PR03MB2265.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CFC7EFC7-BD75-43DC-A61C-FF7ABD7337A3@ericsson.com>
From: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
Message-ID: <e8161f19-4be2-1f7b-99e3-785a515accbd@innovationslab.net>
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 10:42:29 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CFC7EFC7-BD75-43DC-A61C-FF7ABD7337A3@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="47O6l50kPTl1psRFBks2K2cHDlLimx0sh"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/lZetSlKwAcyWTlrnaCVzWu_IO6A>
Subject: Re: [6lo] Draft applicability for 6775bis
X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/6lo/>
List-Post: <mailto:6lo@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 14:42:32 -0000


On 4/4/17 10:02 AM, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
> Hi Dave,
> 
>> On Mar 29, 2017, at 1:47 PM, Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Any issue with a standards track document having a normative
>> reference to a BCP?
> 
> No issues that I know of. The downref rules seem to be pointing
> *from* Standards track and BCP documents *to* lower maturity level
> documents as per RFC3967. Just to be safe, I can still call this out
> in the IETF last call if the WG decides to go that way.

Right. ST and BCP are at the same level, so there are no down-ref issues
with a normative reference. Those issues arise when ST or BCP documents
normatively reference Info and Experimental documents.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email