Re: [Last-Call] Artart last call review of draft-kucherawy-bcp97bis-03

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

Howdy Pete,

On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 11:20 AM Pete Resnick via Datatracker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> [...]
>
> Section 2:
>
>    *  There are exceptional procedural or legal reasons that force the
>           target of the normative reference to be an informational or
>           historical RFC or to be at a lower standards level than the
>           referring document.
>
> I think your example needs an example, as I have no idea what one of these
> procedural and particularly legal reasons might be.
>

This is preserved verbatim from RFC 3967.  I don't have any particular
examples in mind.  Perhaps someone who contributed to the original might
recall.  I've Cc'd Scott Bradner.

Section 4.1:
>
>
>                                               Such
>    decisions should be noted in the document shepherd writeup [RFC4858]
>    so the IESG is aware at the time of its review why the annotation is
>    absent.
>
> I suggest moving this out to the last paragraph of the section and amplify
> a
> bit:
>
>    When the document is prepared to submit to the IESG for approval, a
>    document shepherd writeup [RFC4858] is normally written. This writeup
>    should contain a description of any downrefs that appear in the
>    document and should make particular note of any downref that is not
>    identified by an annotation in the References section.
>

Done.


> Section 4.2:
>
>    Such documents are added to the "Downref Registry".
>
> I would add "described in section 7."
>

Done.


>    This procedure is not to be used if the proper step is to move the
>    document to which the reference is being made into the appropriate
>    category.  It is not intended as an easy way out of normal process.
>    Rather, the procedure is intended for dealing with specific cases
>    where putting particular documents into the required category is
>    problematic and unlikely ever to happen.
>
> s/category/status/g
>

Done.


> Section 5 as written doesn't make sense anymore. First, the downref model
> doesn't only apply to "published Standards-Track RFCs at lower maturity
> levels"; it also applies to Informational and Experimental documents. But
> the
> rest is simply repetitive with the last paragraph of 4.2. If you need to
> keep
> any of the last paragraph of section 5, edit it into the last paragraph of
> section 4.2, or replace it. Otherwise, I would strike the entire section at
> this point.
>

Done.


> Section 6 seems to be an update or replacement of RFC 2026 section 7. At
> the
> very least, a reference in this document is in order and a description of
> the
> difference between the two is warranted. I would explicitly call out that
> this
> document updates 2026 section 7.
>

Thanks, I'll add the reference.  I don't know that there's much of a
difference to describe; they seem to be complementary.

I'll have a new version up shortly.

-MSK