Alexey,
The goal of this particular exercise is to advance RFC 3852 *without*
revision, so I called out the normative references as specified in the
document: RFCs 3280 and 3281. It is true that RFC 3280 has been
obsoleted by RFC 5280, and that draft-ietf-pkix-3281update is intended
to update 3281. (Both documents cycled/are cycling at Proposed, so
they would still be downrefs even if we submitted a 3852bis to address
the references.) And, yes this makes it more confusing to determine
whether a downref is appropriate.
I would personally factor the clarifications in RFC 5280 in my
evaluation of the downrefs, since I would use it as the basis for any
new implementation of 3852, but would not consider 3281update since it
is still a working document and subject to change.
To me, the question for the community is whether RFC 3852 achieves the
expected characteristics of a Draft Standard (as described in 2026) in
spite of these downrefs:
A Draft Standard must be well-understood and known to be quite
stable, both in its semantics and as a basis for developing an
implementation.
I believe the implementation report adequately demonstrates RFC 3852
*in its totality* is well-understood and provides a stable basis for
developing interoperable implementations. To my mind, this makes
advancement appropriate in spite of the two downrefs.
Thanks,
Tim
On Apr 27, 2009, at 12:15 PM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the smime WG (smime) to
consider the following document:
- 'Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) '
RFC 3852 as a Draft Standard
No technical issues were raised during the first Last Call.
However, the
Last Call failed to highlight two normative references to standards
track
documents of lower maturity: RFCs 3280 and 3281.
Speaking as a member of the IETF community I find the question
confusing, considering that both documents were obsoleted (or just
about to be obsoleted in case of RFC 3281). Shouldn't this be RFC
5280 and draft-ietf-pkix-3281update-04.txt?
This abbreviated Last Call is focused solely on whether downrefs to
these
Proposed Standards are appropriate in the context of RFC 3852.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
