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

[Brian Rosen <[e-mail]>]

<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?

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.
> 
> 
>