Re: [Gen-art] RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-05

Maybe someone could clarify the progress of the IS-IS RFCs from 
Informational to Standards Track.

It seems to me that this operation has been progressing for the longest 
time, and it is leaving everyone in a state of mild confusion about what 
they should be doing.

For example, if it is the intention that all IS-IS protocol RFCs will be 
Standards Track, then new I-Ds should have intended status of Standards 
Track. But that means that, until the old RFCs are upgraded, we 
automatically have a downref.

It seems to me that the downref process was not designed to handle this type 
of downref, and that we should just get on with things instead of enforcing 
this particular rule.

Adrian

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Russ Housley" <housley@vigilsec.com>
To: <rcallon@juniper.net>
Cc: "LE ROUX Jean-Louis RD-CORE-LAN" <jeanlouis.leroux@orange-ftgroup.com>; 
<Pasi.Eronen@nokia.com>; <gen-art@ietf.org>; <ccamp-chairs@tools.ietf.org>; 
<ccamp-ads@tools.ietf.org>; <jpv@cisco.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 9:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-05

> Ross:
>
> I think you have to issue a second Last Call to resolve this problem.
>
> Russ
>
> At 10:24 AM 5/30/2007, LE ROUX Jean-Louis RD-CORE-LAN wrote:
>> > 3) As noted in the proto write-up, there's a normative
>> > downref (RFC 3784). This downref was not called out in the
>> > IETF last call message, and it's not listed in the downref
>> >registry.
>>
>>OK, what shall we do to cover this point?
>
> 

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art