John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search-24: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for this document. I have one concern, which should be easy to address. It looks as though draft-ietf-jsonpath-base should be a Normative reference. In fact, this is explicitly mentioned in the shepherd writeup (thank you!): > 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG > Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. JSON Paths are depended on normatively in the document, but the reference for them is to I-D.ietf-jsonpath-base, which is why that reference is informative. (This is in keeping with e.g. RFC 8977, though in that case the reference was to the original description of the JSON Path behaviour at https://goessner.net/articles/JsonPath/.) However, that rationale doesn't make sense to me. If a normative reference is a downref, "just stick it in the informative references section instead" is not the appropriate fix, the usual thing is to keep it in the normative references and then the RFC Editor deals with the mismatch by holding off on publication of the dependent document, until the dependency is published (a so-called "cluster"). In this case, draft-ietf-jsonpath-base is on the same IESG agenda as draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search is, so there isn't even much reason to worry that draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search will be stalled for long if at all, the two will likely move together. The easiest way to resolve this DISCUSS would be to change the reference to Normative. If for some reason that's considered unacceptable, I'd appreciate a discussion explaining why, and why "make it an informative reference" should be acceptable. _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
