Re: BCP97bis

[Russ Housley <[e-mail]>]

Hi Murray.

I have on concern and a few editorial suggestions.


CONCERN

Section 4.1 says:

   o  A note is included in the reference text that indicates that the
      reference is to a target document of a lower maturity level, that
      some caution should be used since it may be less stable than the
      document from which it is being referenced, and, optionally,
      explaining why the downref is appropriate.

There are many cases where cryptographic algorithms are specified in Informational RFC, and then a Standards-Track document is used to specify protocol conventions for using that algorithm.  the algorithm specification is not unstable, and requiring a note like this sends the wrong message to the reader.


EDITORIAL

Section 1 says:

   It should also be noted that Best Current Practice documents
   [RFC1818] have generally been considered similar to Standards Track
   documents in terms of what they can reference.  For example, a
   normative reference to an Experimental RFC has been considered an
   improper reference per [RFC2026].

These two sentences are not really making the same point.  With the second sentence starting with "For example", I expected it to be related to the first sentence.

Section 1.1 uses the term "new RFC".  However, the "new" is not needed.  The defintion ofr a normative reference apply to very old RFCs too.


Russ


> On Oct 15, 2021, at 1:12 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Colleagues,
> 
> I've got a draft that seeks to update BCP 97, which is the guidance around how we handle normative downward references.  It's currently made up of three separate RFCs and an erratum, so this will consolidate those into a single document.  The main mission here, though, is to update the guidance around normative references to external documents, especially those behind paywalls.
> 
> The draft is being sponsored by Erik Kline and can be found in the datatracker here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kucherawy-bcp97bis/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kucherawy-bcp97bis/>
> 
> Feedback is welcome, either on this thread or to me or Erik directly.  If people are generally happy with it as-is, we can initiate Last Call before IETF 112 begins next month.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -MSK, ART AD