Re: [weirds] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-11.txt

[Peter Koch <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 04:09:25PM -0500, Barry Leiba wrote:

> > "the other entity" (aka ICANN) describe (in an RFC, independent submission stream)
> > the operational details of the initial "hook".
> 
> I would be happy with that alternative, as long as it's a normative
> reference, which this document would then have to wait for.  I think

while processing them in prallel at the RFC Editor is a good idea,
I think not only should there be no normative reference (downref to Informational,
not necessary to understand the protocol spec, not even to implement it because what's
provided in the "companion" RFC is config data) but probably none
at all, simply because the IETF might not need to take a position here _and_
the protocol work is done by specifying the format.  But I could understand
the desire to provide some guidance in an appendix _with_ a pointer to the 2nd RFC.

> I'm not sure we want to delay things for that, but you're welcome to argue it.

I'd not argue in favor of delay, but definitely for said separation.
I can't write the second document because "I'm not ICANN" ...

-Peter