Re: [Rfced-future] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-rosen-rfcefdp-update-2026-01: (with COMMENT)

[Jean Mahoney <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

On 3/8/22 10:44 AM, Brian Rosen wrote:
> <adding rfced-future>
> Thank you for your review.
>
> I will defer to whatever current practice the RFC Editor has with regard to how we indicate that a document updates a BCP. Would someone from the RFC Production center chime in here?

The IESG approval message should indicate if the document will be added 
to BCP 9.

The Updates field should say: "Updates: 2026 (if approved)"

Best regards,

Jean, chiming in from the RPC


>
> I personally don’t think that the reference to rfc-model should be normative, but I will defer to the wishes of the rfced-future work group. “Must be read to understand” applies to lots of informative references.
>
> Brian
>
>> On Mar 8, 2022, at 7:28 AM, Alvaro Retana via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-rosen-rfcefdp-update-2026-01: No Objection
>>
>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>>
>>
>> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
>> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>
>>
>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rosen-rfcefdp-update-2026/
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> (1) It should be indicated somewhere that this document should be part of BCP
>> 9.  I prefer an RFC Editor Note in the ballot/IESG Writeup.  I did notice that
>> the header includes "Updates:...BCP 9", but (trying not to get into the meaning
>> of "updates") only RFCs should be listed there.
>>
>> (2) The reference to draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model should be Normative because
>> it must be read to understand the change being made.
>>
>>
>>