Re: [urn] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-urnbis-ns-reg-transition-08: (with COMMENT)

[Adam Roach <[e-mail]>]

On 8/2/17 10:04, John C Klensin wrote:
> If "preferably"
> is turning in "mandatory", we need to have two discussions, one
> about the authority boundary between the IESG and the RFC Editor
> and the other about where in RFC 2026 and its updates the IESG
> is given authority to make policy by issuing statements rather
> than determining and reflecting IETF community consensus.


Thanks for sending me down the path of determining authority here, as it 
has made me realize that I was confused about the basis for insisting 
that Obsoleted documents be explicitly listed in the Abstract.

It turns out that the 2011 IESG statement of "preferably" is a weak 
restating of a 2008 IETF-consensus decision to approve version 1.9 of 
the "ID-Checklist" document, which clearly states that the Abstract of a 
document needs to list obsoleted and/or updated documents (cf. 
<https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist.html#anchor6>; §3, 1.D, first 
bullet: "if your document obsoletes or updates a previous RFC, then... 
say so in the abstract").

And so I am forced to concede that my "No Objection" was made in error. 
Since the form of this document actively goes against IETF community 
consensus regarding the form of IETF-stream RFCs, I realize that this 
should have been a "Discuss." I will be adjusting my ballot accordingly. 
Thank you again for pointing me in the correct direction, and I 
apologize for the error.


> As to "go[ing] against convention", I
> believe that a careful survey of documents since that statement
> was issued would not show that the "preference" has been
> consistently enough followed to constitute normal behavior, nor
> that this is a "preference" that the RFC Editor is enforcing.


I've consulted with the RFC Editor, and received confirmation that their 
policy is (and has historically been) to "help enforce" this 
requirement, on the authority of ID-Checklist. You seem to be aware of 
documents for which this was overlooked. If you could identify them, I 
would appreciate it, as doing so would allow the proper errata to be filed.

/a