Subject: Discussing a DISCUSS - down-refs in draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 12:34:53 -0700

There is currently a DISCUSS for draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02:

<process weenie="">

The IETF LC
(https://www.ietf.org/ibin/c5i?mid=6&rid=49&gid=0&k1=934&k2=9680&tid=1314107697)
did not call out the downrefs to RFC 4954 and 5321.  There is no doubt in my
mind that no one will object to these downrefs, but they need to be explicitly
called out in the IETF LC.

</process>

The intent of this message is to discuss the DISCUSS as there seems 
to be a misunderstanding about down-refs.  I do not consider it as 
inappropriate for the AD to have lodged the above DISCUSS.

The argument for this DISCUSS is that the downrefs to RFC 4954 and 
5321 have not been called out during the IETF Last Call.  The quick 
fix is to rerun the Last Call.  That approach would not materially 
affect the outcome.

I have pointed out during the Last Call that there are down-refs [1] 
and provided a justification for them.  Appendix B of 
draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02 contains a RFC 4897 statement/ disclaimer.

I would be grateful if the IESG or Area Director can clarify the 
DISCUSS criteria used [2] given that BCP 97 allows for annotations in 
handling of normative references in Standards-Track documents.

If there is appropriate community review, is it acceptable to add a 
downward reference even though it was not explicitly called out 
previously?  In other words, why should there be another Last Call?

Regards,
-sm

1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg68421.html
2. http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 18:02:45 -0400

>>>>> "SM" == SM  <[email-masked]> writes:

    SM> There is currently a DISCUSS for draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02:
    SM> <process weenie="">

    SM> The IETF LC
    SM> (https://www.ietf.org/ibin/c5i?mid=6&rid=49&gid=0&k1=934&k2=9680&tid=1314107697)
    SM> did not call out the downrefs to RFC 4954 and 5321.  There is no
    SM> doubt in my mind that no one will object to these downrefs, but
    SM> they need to be explicitly called out in the IETF LC.

    SM> </process>

    SM> The intent of this message is to discuss the DISCUSS as there
    SM> seems to be a misunderstanding about down-refs.  I do not
    SM> consider it as inappropriate for the AD to have lodged the above
    SM> DISCUSS.

    SM> The argument for this DISCUSS is that the downrefs to RFC 4954
    SM> and 5321 have not been called out during the IETF Last Call.
    SM> The quick fix is to rerun the Last Call.  That approach would
    SM> not materially affect the outcome.

    SM> I have pointed out during the Last Call that there are down-refs
    SM> [1] and provided a justification for them.  Appendix B of
    SM> draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02 contains a RFC 4897 statement/
    SM> disclaimer.

Hey, I think I read RFC 4897 once.
Someone's actually trying to use that? Who knew!

Seriously, section 3.1 of RFC 4897 makes it clear that an RFC 4897
downward reference does not need an RFC 3967-style comment in the IETF
last call.  As best I can tell, this discuss should be cleared because
The AD is confused about what BCP is being applied here.

Really this is one of those situations where we're all sitting around
the table playing a nice game of "publish that doc" and people have to
get out their copy of the IETF rules, the IETF rules erata and the IETF
player's magazine articles with rules commentary and figure out what is
going on.:-)

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 01:35:46 -0400

--On Tuesday, August 23, 2011 18:02 -0400 Sam Hartman
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>     SM> There is currently a DISCUSS for
> draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02:     SM> <process weenie="">
> 
>     SM> The IETF LC
>     SM>
> (https://www.ietf.org/ibin/c5i?mid=6&rid=49&gid=0&k1=934&k2=96
> 80&tid=1314107697)     SM> did not call out the downrefs to
> RFC 4954 and 5321.  There is no     SM> doubt in my mind that
> no one will object to these downrefs, but     SM> they need to
> be explicitly called out in the IETF LC.
>...
  
> Seriously, section 3.1 of RFC 4897 makes it clear that an RFC
> 4897 downward reference does not need an RFC 3967-style
> comment in the IETF last call.  As best I can tell, this
> discuss should be cleared because The AD is confused about
> what BCP is being applied here.
> 
> Really this is one of those situations where we're all sitting
> around the table playing a nice game of "publish that doc" and
> people have to get out their copy of the IETF rules, the IETF
> rules erata and the IETF player's magazine articles with rules
> commentary and figure out what is going on.:-)

As someone else who read 4897 once or twice, and independent of
my role as co-editor of the draft in question,

+1.

    john