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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

[Intentionally trimmed CCs]

On 09-Mar-22 07:54, Jean Mahoney wrote:
> 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.

I will add that the kramdown (assuming that's the source) *could* include

cat: bcp
seriesNo: "9"

although that leads to a couple of tooling issues as at https://github.com/ietf-tools/ietf-at/issues/87

    Brian C

> 
> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>