Re: [Uta] draft-ietf-uta-xmpp downref

[Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[e-mail]>]

On 4/20/15 5:08 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
>
> On 20/04/15 23:59, Barry Leiba wrote:
>>> To wit, I am not ignoring the process.
>>>
>>>     Once a specific down reference to a particular document has been
>>>     accepted by the community (e.g., has been mentioned in several Last
>>>     Calls), an Area Director may waive subsequent notices in the Last
>>>     Call of down references to it.  This should only occur when the same
>>>     document (and version) are being referenced and when the AD believes
>>>     that the document's use is an accepted part of the community's
>>>     understanding of the relevant technical area.  For example, the use
>>>     of MD5 [RFC1321] and HMAC [RFC2104] is well known among
>>>     cryptographers.
>>
>> The problem is that as far as I can find, it hasn't been mentioned in
>> *any* last calls.  I'm bummed: as I said, I don't think that doing
>> this helps anyone, and that we should change BCP 97 forthwith.
>
> I think Joel's argument is that 4949 has been "accepted by
> the community" in that RFC6749 is 2.5 years old and nobody
> noticed. The "several last calls" above is just an example
> in the text also.
>
> I can buy into that. (If we go with that I'd say we can add
> 4949 to the downref registry with the oauth draft as the
> referring draft and leave the LC date blank.)

Hey, I'll let you sitting ADs figure out the process, but from my 
perspective another 2 weeks isn't the end of the world. :-)

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://andyet.com/