Hi Dave, > On Mar 29, 2017, at 1:47 PM, Dave Thaler <dtha...@microsoft.com> wrote: > > Any issue with a standards track document having a normative reference to a > BCP?
No issues that I know of. The downref rules seem to be pointing *from* Standards track and BCP documents *to* lower maturity level documents as per RFC3967. Just to be safe, I can still call this out in the IETF last call if the WG decides to go that way. > If so, then could reword so that the MUST NOT is not in the same sentence as > the BCP reference, e.g. > >> However, the ability to return errors to address registrations MUST NOT be >> used to restrict the ability of hosts to form and use addresses. See >> [RFC7934] >> for further discussion. > > If there is no issue in having a normative reference to a BCP then I think > Erik's text is fine. I have no problems with this text either as it cleanly decouples the requirement from the background. Thanks Suresh
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list 6lo@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
