Subject: RE: revised Security Consideration section

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 14:42:08 -0500 (EST)

>        As I understand it, Sandy's draft is intended to
>be informational.  Therefore, it is not clear to me that
>the reference needs to be normative.  As a non normative
>(as it is in your proposal).

The problem is procedural, I think.

You can't progress an RFC with a reference to a draft in it.
And your RFC must include a security considerations section, so
you can't leave it out entirely.

And, as John pointed out, the whole draft is about BGP, so there's
no taking out just the BGP portions.

--Sandy

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 14:51:52 -0500 (EST)

> You can't progress an RFC with a reference to a draft in it.

nit 

You can't progress an RFC with a normative reference to a draft in it.

Scott