Thomas:
My preference is option 2 (making the reference informative), but I can go
along with whatever James Carlson and the rest of you decide.
Thanks,
Rich Winslow
-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Narten [mailto:narten@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 12:29 PM
To: ietf-ppp@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: IESG Evaluation of draft-ietf-pppext-vendor-protocol-01.txt
The IESG has reviewed the document and did not have any issue with the
content of the document per se.
However, the follow issue was raised:
This document has a normative reference to RFC 2153, which is an
informational document. Per 2026, Standards Track documents can't
have normative references to informational documents.
The following options were mentioned as ways forward:
- Moving to reclassify 2153 as Standards Track.
- Making 2153 an informative reference. (doable, but would
require some text shuffling)
- Moving this draft to Informational track.
I think there was a slight preference within the IESG for the latter
step, but we can go with whatever the WG decides it wants to do.
Opinions?
Thomas
|
