Re: BCP97bis
Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Sat, 16 October 2021 15:45 UTC
Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C80343A0B70 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Oct 2021 08:45:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.895
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 5-66oVZNqoNb for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Oct 2021 08:45:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18DC03A0B6F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Oct 2021 08:45:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17100300C19 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Oct 2021 11:45:36 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net
Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id jte2DcQCvcDz for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Oct 2021 11:45:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from a860b60074bd.fios-router.home (pool-141-156-161-153.washdc.fios.verizon.net [141.156.161.153]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4ADC4300B74; Sat, 16 Oct 2021 11:45:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Message-Id: <C92D456E-63ED-453B-8F33-3AAECA40D1DA@vigilsec.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_784EC65A-413E-4BF0-8009-86E271CF579B"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.21\))
Subject: Re: BCP97bis
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2021 11:45:30 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwbLqyWSqFGL2x-FpXXD19QG9-eZkrnTVm_fxt3tUfZSgg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
References: <CAL0qLwbwvs2Cp_urgJ=hzc6yEMGDaz3C0xf6RQXRrB89wAx=Rw@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwavK5dYdmYPVxdMT5rA=jBZv1cEyAsVBEWOD7p9MoZR1g@mail.gmail.com> <C657F78F-FF99-4898-8A08-844B32589DDE@vigilsec.com> <CAL0qLwbLqyWSqFGL2x-FpXXD19QG9-eZkrnTVm_fxt3tUfZSgg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.21)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/iA-xzX9r3YTYhnJ7PqqlkFjYJss>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2021 15:45:40 -0000
> On Oct 16, 2021, at 12:56 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Russ, > > On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 12:27 PM Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com <mailto:housley@vigilsec.com>> wrote: > 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. > > Interesting. This text is preserved from RFC 4897. But now that you mention it, I don't think this particular bit of process has ever been used for as long as I've been observing. > > Also, the paragraph immediately after that one gives the IESG discretion about what such a note should include. The case you cite seems to me to be an ideal one in which to use that discretion, perhaps with the advice of the authors/editors/chairs. I think that the text should be included ONLY when the downref is less stable than the document making the reference. > > 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. > > And that one is copied right out of RFC 3967, which got all this started. But I agree. Perhaps "For example, a normative reference from a BCP to an Experimental ..." ? That is an improvement. > > 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. > > Also copied from RFC 3967, but I agree. Will edit accordingly. Thanks. Russ
- BCP97bis Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: BCP97bis Russ Housley
- Re: BCP97bis Scott Bradner
- Re: BCP97bis Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: BCP97bis Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: BCP97bis David Farmer
- Re: BCP97bis Brian Carpenter
- Re: BCP97bis Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: BCP97bis Scott Bradner
- Re: BCP97bis Russ Housley
- Re: BCP97bis Salz, Rich
- Re: BCP97bis Michael Richardson
- Re: BCP97bis and Informational-as-Standard Michael Richardson
- RE: BCP97bis Larry Masinter
- Re: BCP97bis Joel M. Halpern
- Re: BCP97bis Michael Richardson
- Re: BCP97bis Brian E Carpenter
- RE: BCP97bis Larry Masinter
- Re: BCP97bis John Levine
- Re: BCP97bis Scott Bradner
- Re: BCP97bis John C Klensin
- Re: BCP97bis Carsten Bormann
- Re: BCP97bis Salz, Rich
- Re: BCP97bis John C Klensin
- Re: BCP97bis Brian E Carpenter
- Re: BCP97bis Russ Housley
- Re: BCP97bis Carsten Bormann
- Re: BCP97bis John C Klensin
- Re: BCP97bis John C Klensin
- Re: BCP97bis Carsten Bormann
- Re: BCP97bis Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: BCP97bis Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: BCP97bis Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: BCP97bis John C Klensin
- Re: BCP97bis Michael Richardson
- Re: BCP97bis John C Klensin
- Re: BCP97bis John C Klensin
- Re: BCP97bis Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: BCP97bis Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: BCP97bis Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: BCP97bis Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: BCP97bis Carsten Bormann
- Re: BCP97bis Carsten Bormann
- Re: BCP97bis tom petch
- RE: BCP97bis mohamed.boucadair
- RE: BCP97bis ned+ietf
- Re: BCP97bis John C Klensin
- BCP97bis and "freely available" John C Klensin
- RE: BCP97bis John C Klensin
- Re: BCP97bis Salz, Rich
- Re: BCP97bis John C Klensin
- Re: BCP97bis Salz, Rich
- Re: BCP97bis Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: BCP97bis Salz, Rich
- Re: BCP97bis John C Klensin
- Re: BCP97bis Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: BCP97bis Salz, Rich
- RE: BCP97bis mohamed.boucadair
- Re: BCP97bis a process problem tom petch
- Re: BCP97bis John C Klensin
- Re: BCP97bis Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: BCP97bis Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: BCP97bis Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: BCP97bis Warren Kumari
- Re: BCP97bis Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: BCP97bis Lars Eggert
- Re: BCP97bis Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: BCP97bis Warren Kumari
- Re: BCP97bis Salz, Rich
- Re: BCP97bis and "freely available" Scott O. Bradner
- Re: BCP97bis and "freely available" Brian E Carpenter
- Re: BCP97bis John C Klensin
- Re: BCP97bis and "freely available" Michael Richardson
- Re: BCP97bis and "freely available" John C Klensin
- BCP written by another AD [was Re: BCP97bis] Brian E Carpenter
- Re: BCP97bis a process problem Brian E Carpenter
- Re: BCP97bis Michael Richardson
- Re: BCP97bis and "freely available" Sandy Wills
- Re: BCP97bis and "freely available" Michael StJohns
- Re: BCP97bis and "freely available" George Michaelson
- Re: BCP97bis and "freely available" Randy Presuhn
- Re: BCP97bis and "freely available" George Michaelson
- Re: BCP97bis and "freely available" Brian E Carpenter
- Re: BCP97bis and "freely available" Salz, Rich
- Re: BCP97bis a process problem Michael Richardson
- Re: BCP97bis and "freely available" Michael Richardson
- RE: BCP97bis ned+ietf
- Re: BCP97bis a process problem Brian E Carpenter
- Re: BCP97bis and "freely available" tom petch
- Re: BCP97bis a process problem tom petch
- Re: BCP written by another AD [was Re: BCP97bis] Erik Kline
- Re: BCP97bis Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: BCP97bis Salz, Rich
- Re: BCP97bis Murray S. Kucherawy