Re: BCP97bis a process problem

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

On 15/10/2021 18:12, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> Colleagues,
>
> I've got a draft that seeks to update BCP 97, which is the guidance around
> how we handle normative downward references.  It's currently made up of
> three separate RFCs and an erratum, so this will consolidate those into a
> single document.  The main mission here, though, is to update the guidance
> around normative references to external documents, especially those behind
> paywalls.
>
> The draft is being sponsored by Erik Kline and can be found in the
> datatracker here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kucherawy-bcp97bis/
>
> Feedback is welcome, either on this thread or to me or Erik directly.  If
> people are generally happy with it as-is, we can initiate Last Call before
> IETF 112 begins next month.

I have called out a number of downrefs in the past year or two, of 
Normative References to IETF documents that are not Standards Track RFC 
or I-D, and the response has sometimes been for the author to revise the 
I-D to make it an Informative Reference.  This is a nonsense; the I-D 
cannot be understood without the Reference in question.

I can think of two explanations.

1) the author is not familiar with the processes and thinks that I-D 
Nits it ordering the author to reclassify the reference

2) the author is familiar with the processes and is trying to game the 
system.

Either way, I think that the process is failing in  way that this I-D 
does not address.

Tom Petch


> Thanks,
>
> -MSK, ART AD
>