Re: Last Call: <draft-leiba-3967upd-downref-00.txt> (Updating when Standards Track Documents may Refer Normatively to Documents at a Lower Level) to Best Current Practice

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Hi Barry,

Clarifications in line...

On 19/10/2016 08:55, Barry Leiba wrote:
>> I broadly in favour of this change, but I have a few comments.
> 
> Thanks, Brian.
> 
>> First, a minor suggestion on the text itself:
>>
>> OLD:
>>    The responsible AD should
>>    still check for downrefs before sending out the last call notice, but
>>    any need to repeat a last call if this has not been done is at the
>>    discretion of the IESG.
>> NEW:
>>    The responsible AD should
>>    still check for downrefs before sending out the last call notice, but
>>    if an undetected downref is noticed during last call or IESG review,
>>    any need to repeat the last call is at the discretion of the IESG.
> 
> Yes, that reflects the intent and is more explicitly clear.  I like the change.
> 
>> Second,
>>
>>>    there are no related security
>>>    considerations.
>>
>> That bothers me a tiny bit. A missed downref could have security implications.
> 
> I agree, but I contend that this doesn't make it any more likely that
> we'll miss a downref.  In fact, this change is only operable when we
> *don't* miss it -- it simply gives the IESG judgment on whether last
> call needs to be repeated when we catch it.  And the Security ADs will
> certainly have a say in that, if they think that broader review of the
> downref is warranted for security checking.

True. How about s/related/directly related/ ? But I certainly don't insist.

> 
>> Third, I believe that in addition to this procedural change, there is a
>> little work needed on the ecosystem:
>>
>> 1. Make the downref registry an intrinsic part of the data tracker. I mean that
>> each document listed at https://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/DownrefRegistry
>> would instead be tagged as 'downref allowed' in the tracker, with appropriate GUI
>> support for the IESG to apply this tag.
>>
>> 2. Enhance idnits slightly to check this tag when it detects a downref.
>> A downref to a 'downref allowed' document would be a warning, and a downref
>> to a non-downref-allowed document would be an error.
> 
> I agree that those would be excellent changes, and I'll ask Ben, as
> sponsoring AD, to send that request up to the tools team.  I don't
> gather than you're asking that the document be held for that, correct?

Correct; it's orthogonal.

> 
> The change you suggest above is in my working copy for the next draft revision.

Thanks!

   Brian

> 
> Barry
>