IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: 2606bis

Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com> Thu, 20 October 2005 09:58 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ESXBi-0001AL-Bb; Thu, 20 Oct 2005 05:58:18 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ESXBf-00018s-Tg for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Oct 2005 05:58:16 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA28522 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Oct 2005 05:58:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mtagate4.de.ibm.com ([195.212.29.153]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ESXNY-0001mB-JY for ietf@ietf.org; Thu, 20 Oct 2005 06:10:35 -0400
Received: from d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.167.49]) by mtagate4.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j9K9w3Fe162030 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Oct 2005 09:58:03 GMT
Received: from d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.228]) by d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VERS6.7) with ESMTP id j9K9w3Br233594 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Oct 2005 11:58:03 +0200
Received: from d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j9K9w3vr030956 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Oct 2005 11:58:03 +0200
Received: from sihl.zurich.ibm.com (sihl.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.232]) by d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j9K9w2S4030946; Thu, 20 Oct 2005 11:58:02 +0200
Received: from zurich.ibm.com (sig-9-146-217-168.de.ibm.com [9.146.217.168]) by sihl.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA57514; Thu, 20 Oct 2005 11:58:00 +0200
Message-ID: <43576A28.9070203@zurich.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 11:58:00 +0200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>
Organization: IBM
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113
X-Accept-Language: en, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0509191647510.23762@internaut.com> <p0620074fbf5509dd070a@192.168.2.2> <Pine.LNX.4.61.0509192043550.28535@internaut.com> <4333DDFF.8020909@zurich.ibm.com> <4333F545.7619@xyzzy.claranet.de> <4355E8A4.7634@xyzzy.claranet.de> <C56AABD8019A5267529A992C@scan.jck.com> <435697F6.3014@xyzzy.claranet.de> <ed6d469d0510191440u45a70950ve074ee12ab637cb3@mail.gmail.com> <D9DD64A87AE4FD60479C62F3@scan.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <D9DD64A87AE4FD60479C62F3@scan.jck.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7baded97d9887f7a0c7e8a33c2e3ea1b
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: 2606bis
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

We *could* open that can of worms, but a downref really sends
the same message with less work.

    Brian

John C Klensin wrote:
> 
> --On Wednesday, 19 October, 2005 14:40 -0700 Bill Fenner
> <fenner@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>On 10/19/05, Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> wrote:
>>
>>>... to see a big red blinking WAIT
>>>for each normative reference to an informational RfC.
>>
>>Not if the RFC 3967 procedure is followed ("Clarifying when
>>Standards Track Documents may Refer Normatively to Documents
>>at a Lower Level.")
> 
> 
> Or, of course, we could ask for a Last Call and retroactively
> reclassify RFC 1591 as a BCP.  Because there was not even a
> serious attempt to solicit or identify community consensus
> around the variations that ICANN's ICP-1 introduced into the RFC
> 1591 norms and definitions, and a large fraction of top-level
> domains and others have declined to accept the ICANN version,
> 1591 probably still does represent a best practice consensus in
> most respects.
> :-)
> 
>     john
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 


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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email