Re: 2606bis

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Wed, 19 October 2005 23:17 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ESNBN-0004CX-Bi; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 19:17:17 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ESNBK-00047L-9S for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 19:17:14 -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 TAA19894 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 19:17:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ns.jck.com ([209.187.148.211] helo=bs.jck.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ESNN7-00065q-OT for ietf@ietf.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 19:29:27 -0400
Received: from [209.187.148.215] (helo=scan.jck.com) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1ESNB7-0000kS-E7; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 19:17:01 -0400
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 19:17:00 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Bill Fenner <fenner@gmail.com>, Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
Message-ID: <D9DD64A87AE4FD60479C62F3@scan.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <ed6d469d0510191440u45a70950ve074ee12ab637cb3@mail.gmail.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>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.4 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: 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


--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