Re: [renum] [Gen-art] Gen-art telechat review: draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-06.txt (updated for -07)

On 5/15/2013 1:50 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
> Robert:
>
> Thanks again for your careful review, and for the authors and you for the discussion and revisions that resulted in a much improved document. I plan to support the document's approval in tomorrow's IESG telechat. A big part of my document approval decisions are the Gen-ART reviews, and they help me greatly.
>
> I think the expired draft discussion that you guys had is a minor side issue, but I thought I'd provide my perspective on it. While a normative reference to discontinued work is problematic, some informative references are IMHO OK and in some cases even necessary. One such category is expressing source of ideas or text. The correct attribution of material and ideas is important. From that point of view this particular reference is fine as far as I am concerned (though I am also fine with text in the acknowledgments section, which is what the draft has now).

As an author of both, I agree with Jari. I'm OK with the current text,
but I think we should have an informational reference since the draft
is mentioned in the text. It is pretty common to have informational
references to expired drafts (and any other document on the internet
that has a stable reference).

Stig

> Jari
>
> _______________________________________________
> renum mailing list
> renum@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/renum
>