Re: BCP97bis

[Russ Housley <[e-mail]>]

> On Oct 16, 2021, at 12:56 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Russ,
> 
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 12:27 PM Russ Housley <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> 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