Re: Already Last-Called downrefs

On 2007-03-14 15:17, Pekka Savola wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2007, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> Just to confirm: 2818 has already been "downrefed" so it can be used in
>> this way without further formality.
>>
>> http://www1.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/DownrefRegistry
> 
> There appear to have been two kinds of Last Calls:
>  1) Last Call for document X which also last calls that document's 
> downrefs, and
>  2) Separate Last Call about downrefs to document Y (rare, see 31 Jan 
> 2007 example below)

2) is a special case of 1) in which the downref was initially
overlooked but was detected during the initial Last Call.

> 
> Which one(s) are you referring to?
> 
> If 1), there seems to be an assumption that if document X downrefs 
> document Y, and that downref is last-called, there is no need to Last 
> Call any downref to document Y.
> 
> There is no text in the Last Call message to suggests the downref should 
> be considered in a 'global' sense (more like 2) above), instead of in 
> the context of the referencing document.

No, that text is in RFC 3967.
> 
> I certainly wouldn't go as far as to say that if it's OK for 
> draft-dusseault-caldav to use RFC2818 in a normative sense, it would 
> automatically make it OK in every other protocol as well.
> 
> RFC 3967 says:
> =====
>    Once a specific down reference to a particular document has been
>    accepted by the community (e.g., has been mentioned in several Last
>    Calls), an Area Director may waive subsequent notices in the Last
>    Call of down references to it.  This should only occur when the same
>    document (and version) are being referenced and when the AD believes
>    that the document's use is an accepted part of the community's
>    understanding of the relevant technical area.  For example, the use
>    of MD5 [RFC1321] and HMAC [RFC2104] is well known among
>    cryptographers.
> =====
> 
> And I'm not sure if those requirements have been fulfilled yet. Am I 
> missing something?

The IESG is working on the basis that those requirements have been
met in this case. If not, the downref would need to be mentioned
in a Last Call.

This is one of the reasons draft-klensin-norm-ref is in Last Call;
although it doesn't remove the RFC 3967 procedure, it will make
things a lot clearer to anyone reviewing a draft that makes a
downref.

> FWIW, there appear to be errors in the DownrefRegistry above.  For 
> example, draft-ietf-lemonade-compress has not been Last Called this 
> year, and when -06 version was in Dec 2006, it had no mention of 
> downref.  There is a 'global'-like Last Call on 31 Jan 2007 but it seems 
> to be about RFC 1951, not 1531.)
> 

Yes, this seems odd. In fact -compress-07 cites 1951 and not 1531.

But on the other hand
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg03396.html
mentions a downref to 3576 which is not yet listed. And
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg03388.html
mentions a downref to 35985 which is not yet listed. There's
clearly some work to do to get this running smoothly.

     Brian

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf