Re: Status of RFC 20

[joel jaeggli <[e-mail]>]

On 12/7/14 2:13 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
>
> --On Sunday, December 07, 2014 13:47 -0800 joel jaeggli
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>> So, rather than go through a discussion about downrefs and the
>>> like every time RFC 20 is referenced from a Standards-Track
>>> specification, I suggest that the IESG reclassify it to
>>> Internet Standard and waste as little more time doing so as
>>> possible. 
>  
>> 3967 applies quite effectively
>>
>>    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.
> Except that 3967 requires that the downref be _explicitly_
> identified in Last Call announcements and that waiver doesn't
> apply unless that has been done. 
There are normative citations of RFC 20

Q.E.D.

Whether to include one on the future is a judgment call on the part of
the person writing the last call writeup, e.g. the sponsoring AD.
>  Approving documents that
> contain the downref without an explicit mention in the Last Call
> announcement may be fine and sensible but, as 3967 is written,
> doesn't count.
...
> To the best of my knowledge, there has _never_ been a
> requirement that cited documents be available online, and
> especially that authoritative copies be available online.
That's not the point, nobody cited it because they couldn't read it.
>