--On Thursday, March 01, 2012 19:38 +0100 "Sprecher, Nurit (NSN
- IL/Hod HaSharon)" <nurit.sprec...@nsn.com> wrote:
> Draft-betts asks a code point for a document which is not
> mature and not agreed yet. Usually we do not issue last call
> for a document in such a condition!
Actually, we do that fairly regularly. Have a look at the RFC
Editor queue, see how many documents have a status that includes
"MISSREF", and you will get an idea of how many recent ones
there are. Of course, for that analogy to hold, draft-betts
itself must be complete and competent. But a forward normative
reference is not a problem: it just goes into the RFC Editor
queue and, normally, IANA doesn't start doing any assignments on
the basis of such documents until the problems/ references are
resolved and the RFC Editor is editing.
> And in addition, draft-betts has many issues that must be
> resolved first.
> For example it must be clear for what the code point is
> requested. Draft-betts indicates that G.8113.1 is subjected to
> revisions...they may add more messages to G.8113.1 that will
> be hidden behind the code point, etc.
IMO, that should not be part of the IETF's problem. It is part
of the forward reference. As far as I can tell, Russ is not
suggesting actually allocating a code point until (and unless)
G.8113.1 is formally approved and hence complete and "hiding"
nothing.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
