Re: [Detnet] Reference to an Informational RFC

"Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com> Wed, 08 September 2021 19:19 UTC

Return-Path: <agmalis@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C050A3A3343; Wed, 8 Sep 2021 12:19:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 8sSFQ9dn7dHX; Wed, 8 Sep 2021 12:19:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd29.google.com (mail-io1-xd29.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 91F923A33A5; Wed, 8 Sep 2021 12:19:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd29.google.com with SMTP id a22so4704628iok.12; Wed, 08 Sep 2021 12:19:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=my0nWhDjwNNDXUBiqiOVIqSHbJVIZXP2ULMbjX3rJx8=; b=BlHwKDOmovbO5RJ0axVp+zbPs+VcHQG57p8KSLJAM4fyrYLdfgXmlHhvVcIPzNeA1V KG4URSGuUA10SzMj5ehSgzbLlPqqi2SK6F5twm0fJ8eWTcY6tUsnnJYvQxS3xmcchvQJ vBrDgzK2pVXKLFpe/oWd0yWRf7yy4SCdcoEqXrci41t7GeyhU+s3+X1C4oJRiINkD4xi EKWcyjtkec4hdodGFbKZRXjLg2aPXvw0r8Ab58HinXHCJbCEZ5nmaUywvSg1eVjV5m48 qDQba95tk+mOtYvkyfIPMcY/fzFD3jpSY+1pO9KRChOZ72UQQ85pDxal+JFYadQySLsP rrWw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=my0nWhDjwNNDXUBiqiOVIqSHbJVIZXP2ULMbjX3rJx8=; b=BfgA5cCAKpQhw3IuW/bDY+zoPlTVKXaizlozaczoVTFhhAH1X0KVVITs8O4FJZWfIQ v29gPEGvM3+xTXqbVsm4H4CLsxJbLUM8iWvPaqjvV3clZwgNK5jNjuv50B0ajl4PAwcs CQlSzC9PWaWuVsCa2kM2KvxrmvMvkWnhtlq1gnVTcNbBOnC1ZKH/5Afd4vq6lUKA1Br3 x4pKn8p2B39N0ZeEUxwGLV33mROXkGrDPZHKR23cVnscGh0iDvZO7I9eWk/0OSTmr/C/ W89J4iu6c1SbALhprsaAUe2HebwxmnhHDttYdTTGfq/oGTUEfLdMmBz6g6rnMsjdtRei VgTQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5320M3IGxRqKe2vocmZzHopG8v8LViexcfFdsJnKguch55IYKAKg 08B+AJHvjIhFh6QbDzzpHAu2gGYGRtZYPbOGkZc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyCUai2gfuQfJmiMaEW3gxpjEKFQbvrCCOE6MI7Vsqtt1sznJVa5fE+1Q+L3lNdoOlfkZe0lW6eJcRf/Ttue2E=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:7106:: with SMTP id q6mr1249615iog.174.1631128752045; Wed, 08 Sep 2021 12:19:12 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <MN2PR14MB40306391596DF1512D56763BBBD49@MN2PR14MB4030.namprd14.prod.outlook.com> <MN2PR19MB4045F48B5A1D243BC3ADB28D83D49@MN2PR19MB4045.namprd19.prod.outlook.com> <58F8A92F-D99B-46E5-8C11-332143CCE9D0@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <58F8A92F-D99B-46E5-8C11-332143CCE9D0@juniper.net>
From: "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2021 15:18:56 -0400
Message-ID: <CAA=duU2Qy+gsOuU7b6sGaDpGvNNNLBgCkFRSTBf_T_b0R_b_qw@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Scudder <jgs=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: "Black, David" <David.Black@dell.com>, Don Fedyk <dfedyk@labn.net>, "detnet@ietf.org" <detnet@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-detnet-yang@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-detnet-yang@ietf.org>, DetNet Chairs <detnet-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d944ee05cb80c1d1"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/BOTJVzL5iOLcn67s1XKirPnOU_g>
Subject: Re: [Detnet] Reference to an Informational RFC
X-BeenThere: detnet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions on Deterministic Networking BoF and Proposed WG <detnet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/detnet>, <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/detnet/>
List-Post: <mailto:detnet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet>, <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2021 19:19:21 -0000

The downref should also be included in the document shepherd's writeup. The
rule is that an informative RFC can be a normative reference if it's
required to properly understand or implement the draft.

Cheers,
Andy


On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 1:10 PM John Scudder <jgs=
40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> Yes, exactly as David says. If the normative reference is needed, there’s
> no need to shy away from it, the process is not onerous. (And we can
> subsequently also get 9016 onto the downref registry if it belongs there,
> as itsounds like it might). https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/
>
> —John
>
> On Sep 8, 2021, at 10:57 AM, Black, David <David.Black@dell.com> wrote:
>
> 
>
> [External Email. Be cautious of content]
>
> Dell Customer Communication - Confidential
>
>
>
> Check with your AD – this is allowed as an exception if it is truly
> necessary, but attention has to be called to the exception (e.g., in the
> IETF Last Call announcement, if I remember correctly).
>
>
>
> Thanks, --David
>
>
>
> *From:* detnet <detnet-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Don Fedyk
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 8, 2021 10:39 AM
> *To:* John Scudder; detnet@ietf.org
> *Cc:* draft-ietf-detnet-yang@ietf.org; 'DetNet Chairs'
> *Subject:* [Detnet] Reference to an Informational RFC
>
>
>
> [EXTERNAL EMAIL]
>
> Hi John
>
>
>
> While going through last call comments on draft-ietf-detnet-yang.txt  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-detnet-yang
> [datatracker.ietf.org]
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-detnet-yang__;!!LpKI!3snW_FEN5Y_49XLeTZS0lTspVb80pCSiv52DYRHQLrQOwsrbbLYpWK9tSapny8x0$>
>
> Tom Petch Noted, among his many comments,
>
> “It is unfortunate that RFC9016 is Informational - it needs to be a
> Normative Reference IMO; your AD is probably familiar with this problem as
> it occurred as recently as last month and will doubtless occur many times
> again. “
>
>
>
> What is the course of action for us?
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Don & Authors
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> detnet mailing list
> detnet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet
>