Re: [xrblock] downref in draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-decodability-06.txt

Hi Qin,

Please submit an updated version with this change. 

If anybody sees a problem, please say. 

Thanks and Regards,

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Qin Wu [mailto:bill.wu@huawei.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 3:04 AM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); xrblock@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [xrblock] downref in draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-
> decodability-06.txt
> 
> Good catch, I agree with your point.
> I think it is more straightforward to change RFC6709 as Informationtive.
> 
> Regards!
> -Qin
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
> To: <xrblock@ietf.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 10:06 PM
> Subject: [xrblock] downref in draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-decodability-
> 06.txt
> 
> 
> > Editors of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-decodability-06.txt,
> >
> > While preparing the write-up draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-decodability-
> 06.txt for submission to the IESG I ran in a similar downref problem as
> with the summary statistics I-D, probably 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 also look
> at this issue?
> >
> > Note that downrefs are OK, but we must be sure that this is what we
> want to do, and call these explicitly in the write-ups, which will lead
> to being called explicitly in the IETF Last Calls.
> >
> > 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,
> >
> > Dan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > xrblock mailing list
> > xrblock@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock
> >