Re: [Rtg-open-source] normatively referencing open source work from standards-track RFCs

Peter Hessler <> Mon, 30 October 2017 08:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BCDC1FABAE for <>; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 01:06:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.889
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.889 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TIKt_W78kM8g for <>; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 01:06:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:67c:12f4::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE80813F75A for <>; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 01:05:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:67c:12f4::2]) by (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id f21e3094 (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305:256:NO) for <>; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 09:05:39 +0100 (CET)
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 09:05:38 +0100
From: Peter Hessler <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Rtg-open-source] normatively referencing open source work from standards-track RFCs
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion and collaboration for Open Source efforts related to the Routing Area <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 08:06:37 -0000

I'm afraid I don't understand the reasoning.  Can you give some
examples that this would solve?

On 2017 Oct 29 (Sun) at 22:57:04 -0400 (-0400), Alia Atlas wrote:
:Although this list has been regrettably silent, I have still been thinking
:about what could be done
:to better improve interactions between the IETF and the variety of Open
:Source organizations and projects.   I would love your opinions and
:One obvious issue that jumped out at me is that it currently is quite
:discouraged for a standards-track RFC to normatively reference non-SDO work
:and part of this is the lack of clear policy around it.   Since normative
:references basically restrict what technology can be built on top of which
:and how, fixing this can give a means for the IETF to publish standards
:that use mature Open Source technology.
:Please take a look and discuss here what you think.   What things did I
:miss (other than the typo for the  dedicated reviewers ;-) ?  Would this
:give clear enough guidance?
:Regards & Thanks,
:---------- Forwarded message ----------