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

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

On 4/20/15 4:02 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
> Hiya,
>
> It was pointed out to me that RFC4949 as a normative
> reference here is a downref, and I didn't call that
> out during the IETF LC for this document. (Sorry about
> that.) Oddly, 4949 hasn't previously been added to the
> downref registry. [1]

That surprises me, given that RFC 4949 is already a normative reference 
from draft-ietf-uta-tls-bcp as well as RFC 6749 and RFC 7489 (both of 
which are standards-track).

> So, the choices are:
>
> 1. make 4949 an informative reference (possible I think but
>     a teeny bit ickky)

A quick look at 
http://www.arkko.com/tools/allstats/citations-rfc4949.html reveals that 
most of the standards-track RFCs that cite RFC 4949 do so 
informationally. So there's plenty of precedent. (It does seem to me, 
however, that you really need to understand the cited glossary in order 
to know what various terms mean in a given spec.)

> 2. I re-do the IETF LC just for this point and we put 4949
>     into [1] so this won't be a deal for other drafts in
>     future

I had assumed this would not be an issue given the RFCs cited above, but 
I suppose there's always a first time for someone to be a process 
stickler. :-)

> Authors/chairs/WG: if you don't tell me you prefer #1 above,
> I'll assume #2 and re-start the IETF LC for this one tomorrow.

Someone needs to blaze this path, so it might as well be us.

> For IESG folks: if it's ok, I suggest you continue your
> evaluations and we can handle this via me putting on a DISCUSS.
> If that's bad somehow, just tell me and we can defer the doc
> until the next telechat.

Whatever works for the IESG. :-)

Peter

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