On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 12:05:05AM +0300, Ilari Liusvaara wrote: > On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 01:03:14PM -0700, Roland Shoemaker wrote: > > One thing that I forgot to bring up during the meeting was an issue > > that was brought up with regards to the order in which the ACME-TLS-ALPN > > and ACME-IP drafts are standardized. ACME-IP defines how to use IP > > addresses with existing challenges and we’d like to include guidance > > on how to do so with TLS-ALPN, but (as far as I’m aware) we are unable > > to reference IDs in RFCs so we cannot directly reference > > draft-ietf-acme-tls-alpn > > This is incorrect. IDs can normatively reference other IDs, if > there is a "plan" on getting the referenced ID ready to be published. > If needed, the referencing draft waits for the referenced one in > RFC-Editor queue.
To expound a bit more, an I-D that gets approved to be an RFC while including a normative reference on another I-D will get stuck in the "MISSREF" state until the depended-on RFC is also ready for publication; this generally also includes the creation of a "cluster" or related proto-RFCs. It is perfectly acceptable for final, published RFCs to have *informative* references to I-Ds, even I-Ds which are not necessarily expected to be published as RFCs. > So I think the easiest way is to just have normative reference > ACME-IP -> TLS-ALPN. This results in them both getting published at the same time, but that is probably fine. -Ben _______________________________________________ Acme mailing list Acme@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
