Re: BCP97bis

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

On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 3:45 PM John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I actually think that suggests something that should probably be
> considered for BCP97bis: that the downref procedure and registry
> should be used only when there are substantive reasons why the
> relevant document cannot be upgraded or that doing so would
> require an unreasonable amount of effort.  That would strengthen
> the text that now appears in the last paragraphs of Murray's
> Sections 4.2 and 5 but even the current text suggests to me that
> "trivial" is not a good enough reason for the use of that
> registry.
>
> I also just noticed that the draft does not appear to describe
> the contents and format of that registry, what entity is
> responsible for keeping it, and where.  Especially if we take
> the position that, once something is in that registry, no
> special procedures (or different procedures) need be followed to
> use the reference in another document, the registry should
> record why downref permission was granted, in which the
> document's categories the reference falls, and any additional
> explanation that seems necessary -- that information should not
> just be in the Last Call.  My instinct tells me that the RFC
> Editor Function should be responsible for the registry itself,
> but that might raise issues I have not thought of yet.
>

Describing the registry's current structure and maintenance is easy
enough.  I'll add that.

It would probably be a nightmare to add that retroactively for the entries
already present, but the publication of this revision to BCP 97 could
stipulate that, going forward, the reason for downref permission needs to
be recorded and made visible for future entries, and who the responsible AD
was.

What did you mean by "in which document's categories the reference falls"?

-MSK