Re: [apps-discuss] Review of draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-05

> RFC 5887 and 4192 are Informational so cannot be normative

That's not true any more -- we've allowed downrefs to Informational
documents for some time now, if the community agrees, through a note in the
last call announcement, that they are necessary references.  All we'd have
to do is run a last call that specifically mentions them.

Barry

On Tuesday, April 16, 2013, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> >>> "starts from existing work in [RFC5887],
> >>> [I-D.chown-v6ops-renumber-thinkabout] and [RFC4192]." but the
> references
> >>> to these documents are informative.  If the document is meant to be an
> extension,
> >>> rather than a replacement, such that these documents must be read to
> get the full
> >>> picture, than a normative reference may be better.
>
> >> Well, we don't have a category for "informative, but really important
> context", so I leave it to you to pick.  I would personally likely choose
> normative to highlight their importance.
> >
> > [Bing2] Ok, if normative could highlight the importance without
> implication of extension or replacement, then I think it is good. Thanks
> for the suggestion.
>
> RFC 5887 and 4192 are Informational so cannot be normative, and the draft
> is long-expired so cannot be normative.
>
> Regards
>    Brian
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org <javascript:;>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>