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

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Ha! Okey dokey, so I just need to put it in the list.
That does sound entirely like the kind of thing I'd
forget.

Well spotted,
S.


On 21/04/15 21:36, Sean Turner wrote:
> Note that 4949 has already been called out in a downref when you requested the IETF LC for the OAuth v2 draft ;)
> 
> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg09796.html
> 
> spt
> 
> 
> On Apr 20, 2015, at 19:48, Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>>
>> Top quoting: thanks all - let's do that. I'll add to the
>> downref registry before the telechat unless someone else
>> on the IESG yells.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> S.
>>
>> On 21/04/15 00:42, joel jaeggli wrote:
>>> On 4/20/15 4:08 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 think community understanding of the document can be understood in
>>> terms of cititations inclusive of normative and informative references
>>> other than simply dowrefs. 4949 is a glossary, many documents of various
>>> levels refer to it informatively and the contents were or have passed
>>> into common understanding in the decade since publication.
>>>
>>> The existence of previous documents with downref's  to the document may
>>> be evidence of an omission (probably is) but in the context of a
>>> document with a decade long service life with numerous citations, is
>>> also more evidence that it has passed into common understanding. as with
>>> the question of whether rfc 20 is actually at a lower maturity level or
>>> not or even if that matters, the latitude to decide when downrefs are to
>>> be waived is invested in the IESG.
>>>
>>> consider in this case the context  in which it is being used
>>>
>>> 2.  Terminology
>>>
>>>   Various security-related terms are to be understood in the sense
>>>   defined in [RFC4949].
>>>
>>> this is not an original turn of phrase
>>>
>>> I could cite others but:
>>>
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6029.txt
>>>
>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6749
>>>
>>> https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=various%20security-related%20terms%20are%20to%20be%20understood%20in%20the%20sense%20defined%20in%20%5brfc4949%5d
>>>
>>> etc
>>>
>>>> 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.)
>>>
>>> personally I think the evidence for the document being fine to cite  for
>>> the purpose of defining the word attack certificate confidentiality
>>> encryption etc is there.
>>>
>>>> S.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> b
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Uta mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Uta mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Uta mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
>