> On Apr 10, 2019, at 9:45 PM, Adam Roach via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> > wrote: > > Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-07: Discuss > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > This is a "discuss discuss" that I plan to clear once the IESG has considered > the topic during tomorrow's telechat. > > This document has a normative reference to RFC 8199, which is informational. > This downref was not mentioned in the IETF Last Call announcement > <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf-announce/>, and RFC 8199 > doesn't > yet appear in the downref registry > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/>. > > Per RFC 8067, this doesn't require running another IETF last call; however, as > it wasn't part of the IETF last call discussion, the IESG is required to > evaluate whether the downref is appropriate.
This change was made in the latest version in response to the Gen-ART review. I think the reference is appropriate and I don’t think another last call is required. Alissa > > > > _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
