Re: BCP97bis

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 7:57 AM <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I agree with the concern raised below.
>
>
>
> It is likely that securing access would be to pay the fees for every
> access. I’m not sure this can be fixed by write-up unless we have in mind
> something similar to the approach considered in my write-up at:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-drip-reqs/shepherdwriteup/
>

In the cases I remember, it's been possible to get free access to the
target document on request when the other SDO is made aware that we're
developing a standard that refers to it.  The authors/editors in those
cases have requested it and received a free copy with the understanding
that it won't be distributed other than to satisfy our reviews.

What you've done here would also be satisfactory (and for this IESG, it
was).

Personally I think swinging the other way is just as bad: The target
document might be the product of an SDO that we consider to be eminently
stable, but how do we know the document we're about to produce is correct
if we can't read the target?  Are reviewers just expected to take it for
granted?

-MSK