[xrblock] downref in draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-summary-stat-05

"Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com> Tue, 15 January 2013 13:54 UTC

Return-Path: <dromasca@avaya.com>
X-Original-To: xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 890F421F86C8 for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 05:54:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.412
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.412 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.187, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0J7Uuc8E9NA4 for <xrblock@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 05:54:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB23121F869F for <xrblock@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 05:54:22 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAAkE71CHCzI1/2dsb2JhbABEgmu7ABZzgiABAQMSKFEBFRUUQiYBBBsah3cBliCEJ4xqjRSQPmEDnBmKPIJ1giQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,446,1355115600"; d="scan'208";a="339793393"
Received: from unknown (HELO p-us1-erheast.us1.avaya.com) ([]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 15 Jan 2013 08:45:58 -0500
Received: from unknown (HELO AZ-FFEXHC01.global.avaya.com) ([]) by p-us1-erheast-out.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 15 Jan 2013 08:28:57 -0500
Received: from AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com ([fe80::6db7:b0af:8480:c126]) by AZ-FFEXHC01.global.avaya.com ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 08:54:31 -0500
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
To: "xrblock@ietf.org" <xrblock@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: downref in draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-summary-stat-05
Thread-Index: Ac3zJ9edIP4k8t09RuCVcwrHVR0CNw==
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:54:31 +0000
Message-ID: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA0611C7@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [xrblock] downref in draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-summary-stat-05
X-BeenThere: xrblock@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Metric Blocks for use with RTCP's Extended Report Framework working group discussion list <xrblock.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/xrblock>, <mailto:xrblock-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/xrblock>
List-Post: <mailto:xrblock@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xrblock-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock>, <mailto:xrblock-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:54:23 -0000

Editors of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-summary-stat-05,

While preparing the write-up draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-summary-stat-05 for submission to the IESG I ran in the following problem, introduced in the last rounds of edits. [RFC6709] is now referred to as a Normative Reference, which results in a downref, as 6709 is an Informational RFC. Can you look at this issue? 

My take as a contributor is that RFC 6709 provides a generic guidance and as such the reference to it may be Informative, but other people may have different opinions. 

Thanks and Regards,